Barack Obama or John McCain

[Christopher Hall]

With the two bought-out branches of the American Corporate Party how are we ever going to make any REAL progress - all we can do is avoid extreme horrors [like Bush] for 'ordinary horrors' like Clinton et al.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION.

They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating.

I disagree, Raymond.

I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time.

I know how you feel, because I think that Ross Perot helped facilitate Clinton's 43% landslide win over GHWB.

It's Gore's fault that he didn't carry the Nader votes and it's GWHB's fault that he didn't carry the Perot votes.

But Nader's candidacy is all for naught this year, though, because Obama should win handily without the Nader votes.

As the Republican Party continues to drift in whatever rudderless direction it takes, I find the notion of a third party to be more appealing - for many of the same reasons that Peter articulates better than myself.

But, let's face it, both parties sold us out on the bailout, and I am confident that there will be more to follow.

[Len Colby]

In my last post I wrote:

We are going in circles, unless you can give reasonable replies to some of the following points there is no reason for me to waste anymore time replying any further.

• Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.

• Cite someone, hopefully with demonstrable expertise in polling, who agrees with your position.

• If you can’t, explain why anyone, even you should accept your “analysis”.

• Cite an occasion in the US since 1948 when every major poll showed one candidate would win but he lost.

Other parts of your last post addressed the first two points but don’t really qualify as “reasonable replies” but I will respond none the less.

Point 1:

“Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.”

You wrote:

"No, what you showed is that they acknowlege the polls show a sample weighting in the dims favor, not that they accept it. You really ARE a piece of work mrgoogle."

Let’s look again at what McCain’s chief pollster and his associates wrote in disputing the results of a LA Times poll which showed McCain behind by 12%, it was one of the first to show a double digit lead for Obama. They objected to a 17% party identification advantage for the Democrats. What part of this did you fail to understand?

“Party identification on the most recent Los Angeles Times survey is out of line with what most other public polls are showing.

[...]

In addition [to 10 polls showing and average 9.3% party identification edge to the Democrats], the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification

I assume you understand phrases like “out of line with”,“showed that” and “that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”. No where did they dispute that there should a sizable party ID advantage for the Democrats. Let’s look at some more of what they wrote:

2. If the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to

a more normalized range

for party identification,

McCain would be down in the mid-single digits, which is what we are seeing in most other polls.

McCain’s double digit deficit is not a reflection of reality, simply a result of an unusual party identification result in this survey

[…]

If party identification on the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to just down by ten (29% GOP / 39% Dem / 27% Ind / 5% Don’t Know/Refused), the ballot would be 40% McCain – 47% Obama.

So once again they disputed a 17% party ID advantage for the Dems and McCain being down by 12% and argued that a 9 – 10% party ID advantage for the Dems and their candidate being behind by about 7% was more realistic.

If cutting party ID by 7% (17 – 10) cut Obama’s lead by 5% (12 – 7) then cutting it by 17%, making the 2 parties equal, would cut it by 12% which would have left the 2 candidates tied. Yet they never made that calculation or argued that this was the case. Why do you suppose that is? Do they not understand polling as well as you do?

I’ll spell it out for you, it’s because they realize that making party ID eauqal or almost equal doesn’t make sense this year, they like Fox accept a 7 – 9% edge for the Dems. You never addressed why Fox shows the same thing. Are they part of the conspiracy?

Nor did you address why seemingly all of the 18 or so polling organizations are making the same “error”. Are they fools who don’t know what they’re doing or are they intentionally skewing the results?

Edited October 28, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

?Point 2:

“Cite someone, hopefully with demonstrable expertise in polling, who agrees with your position.”

You wrote:

“Well if you can't find ANYONE else then it appears that mrgoogle is also a failureat..googling. Heres a second article about McCain camp complaining about weighting.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20...putes_post.html “

Did you actually read the article?

“At the crux of McInturff's argument was the fact that the Democratic party identification in the Post poll was 16 points higher than the Republican identification --

a far larger margin than the Democratic ID edge in other recent public polling

.”

McInturff is “Bill McInturff, the lead pollster for McCain” he was also the lead author of the report I cited above. As with the LA Times poll it was about he is not disputing that significantly more voters ID themselves as Democrats but rather the degree of the split (“a far larger margin than…in other recent public polling”).

The LA Times had it at 17% he and his co-authors thought it should be 9%, this poll had it at 16%, essentially the same as the LAT. The article doesn’t indicate what party ID edge McInturff thinks the Democrats should have but presumably it would be around the 9% he accepted 2 months earlier.

Whan you find an example of someone in the McCain camp/GOP and/or someone with expertise in polling disputing a 7 – 10 party ID advantage for the Dems in this election get back to us. Otherwise continuing to argue your novel “theory” is pointless. I’m sure you won’t be able to, so essentially this debate is over.

You justifiably gave Jack White a hard time for his inability to admit error, you unfortunately suffer from the same inability on this issue at least.

Point 4:

“Cite an occasion in the US since 1948 when every major poll showed one candidate would win but he lost.”

-- No reply

I will address two other of your claims.

You wrote:

“The dim/rep/indie ratios are PRE-DETIRMINED before the pollster makes the first call. They throw the respondents so the results FIT their "special sauce" weighting. The answers you see in the question ARE A DIRECT RESULT of the oversampling of dims...as preplanned by the pollster prior to the start of the poll. Sheesh mrgoolge”

Sorry but you just plain wrong (again). Let’s look once again at what McCain’s chief pollster wrote:

“…the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent.”

So PEW’s interview results “showed that” in early 2008 the Dems had a 9% (36 – 27) party ID advantage over the GOP.

The party ID difference in the ABC News/Wash. Post poll was also based on the answers of the respondents not predetermined. From the article you cited but seemingly didn’t read very carefully:

“Jon Cohen, the Post's polling director, explained that the actual party ID numbers among likely voters had Democrats plus six points. It was only when people who offer no original party ID were asked whether they leaned one direction or the other that the number jumped to Democrats +16.”

You wrote:

“The fact remains the 2004 is historical data AND its the most recent presidental election. Facts are facts mrgoogle.”

Not very meaningful, the party ID gap changed between every election on the chart except 76 - 80, true it normally only changed a point or two but the Dems lost 12% 1980 – 4, by contrast it looks like they will pick up 9% 2004 – 8.

I’m sure you will continue to rationalize that you are correct and have proven something. I seriously doubt anyone reading this thread is under the same delusion. Insulting me all you want won't change that.

ALL - If anyone believes Craig has a point let us know.

Before I go a few thoughts from the McCain camp and Karl Rove:

"McCain's advisers acknowledge that his way back is difficult, but they maintain that there is a way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...06.html?sub=new

.

"He's got a very steep hill to climb," said Rove, whose own projections show Obama leading in states with 317 electoral votes*."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...62-9c3568166ab4

* Obama only need 269 to win the election

Bye, bye.

REASON FOR EDITS - The forum software would let me post my reply in a single message.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Len Colby

[John Simkin]

Len, you are wasting your time arguing with Craig. You might find this article interesting explaining the thinking of people like Craig:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13616

[Len Colby]

With the two bought-out branches of the American Corporate Party how are we ever going to make any REAL progress - all we can do is avoid extreme horrors [like Bush] for 'ordinary horrors' like Clinton et al.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION.

They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating.

I disagree, Raymond.

I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time.

I know how you feel, because I think that Ross Perot helped facilitate Clinton's 43% landslide win over GHWB.

Christopher - I think you are wrong about both elections. You brought up Perot before and I cited exit surveys which indicated that Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton or Bush in almost equal numbers if he wasn't a candidate Which made sense since he was a centrist candidate.

Nadar's vote was several times Bush's margin of victory in enough states to have shifted the election. Thus even if only a fracton of his voters would have voted for Gore instead of staying at home or voting for another candidate, the world we a re living in would be a very different place

[Len Colby]

Len, you are wasting your time arguing with Craig. You might find this article interesting explaining the thinking of people like Craig:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13616

Which is why I bid him adieu. Not that I feel much sympathy for him due to his acting like a complete ass but I can't help myself from thinking "The poor guy's in denial"

I don't think he qualifies as Christian Right, (AFAIK) he has never brought up religion but there are a number of articles about the "rage" and "frustration" felt by Republican die-hards as the election approaches. He obviously takes solace in his bizarre unfounded interpretation of the polls

[Craig Lamson]

In my last post I wrote:

We are going in circles, unless you can give reasonable replies to some of the following points there is no reason for me to waste anymore time replying any further.

• Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.

• Cite someone, hopefully with demonstrable expertise in polling, who agrees with your position.

• If you can’t, explain why anyone, even you should accept your “analysis”.

• Cite an occasion in the US since 1948 when every major poll showed one candidate would win but he lost.

Other parts of your last post addressed the first two points but don’t really qualify as “reasonable replies” but I will respond none the less.

Point 1:

“Explain your objection to polls showing an average 9.6% percent advantage in current party identification for the Democrats when even a GOP polling firm working for McCain argued it was about 9% and even openly pro-McCain/GOP Fox said it was 7%.”

You wrote:

"No, what you showed is that they acknowlege the polls show a sample weighting in the dims favor, not that they accept it. You really ARE a piece of work mrgoogle."

Let’s look again at what McCain’s chief pollster and his associates wrote in disputing the results of a LA Times poll which showed McCain behind by 12%, it was one of the first to show a double digit lead for Obama. They objected to a 17% party identification advantage for the Democrats. What part of this did you fail to understand?

“Party identification on the most recent Los Angeles Times survey is out of line with what most other public polls are showing.

[...]

In addition [to 10 polls showing and average 9.3% party identification edge to the Democrats], the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification

I assume you understand phrases like “out of line with”,“showed that” and “that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”. No where did they dispute that there should a sizable party ID advantage for the Democrats. Let’s look at some more of what they wrote:

2. If the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to

a more normalized range

for party identification,

McCain would be down in the mid-single digits, which is what we are seeing in most other polls.

McCain’s double digit deficit is not a reflection of reality, simply a result of an unusual party identification result in this survey

[…]

If party identification on the L.A. Times survey is recalculated to just down by ten (29% GOP / 39% Dem / 27% Ind / 5% Don’t Know/Refused), the ballot would be 40% McCain – 47% Obama.

So once again they disputed a 17% party ID advantage for the Dems and McCain being down by 12% and argued that a 9 – 10% party ID advantage for the Dems and their candidate being behind by about 7% was more realistic.

If cutting party ID by 7% (17 – 10) cut Obama’s lead by 5% (12 – 7) then cutting it by 17%, making the 2 parties equal, would cut it by 12% which would have left the 2 candidates tied. Yet they never made that calculation or argued that this was the case. Why do you suppose that is? Do they not understand polling as well as you do?

I’ll spell it out for you, it’s because they realize that making party ID eauqal or almost equal doesn’t make sense this year, they like Fox accept a 7 – 9% edge for the Dems. You never addressed why Fox shows the same thing. Are they part of the conspiracy?

Nor did you address why seemingly all of the 18 or so polling organizations are making the same “error”. Are they fools who don’t know what they’re doing or are they intentionally skewing the results?

YOU are spinning like a top again Len to cover for you amazing ignorance on the subject poll is weighted. Ther is NOTHING that indicates there is a 5-7- or even 10% weighting in the electorate. I repeat NOTHING. Its fantasy concocted by the media. Of courtse time will tell as the ONLY pol that counts will be counted on the 4th of november

[Len Colby]

I said I wouldn’t reply any further but I’ll open this one exception because it occurred to me perhaps you need to update the prescription for your reading glasses:

“…the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”

Bill McInturff, the lead pollster for McCain and director of Political Opinion Strategies.

Party ID - GOP 35% Dem 42%, Ind. 16%

Fox News

"He's got a very steep hill to climb," said Rove, whose own projections show Obama leading in states with 317 electoral votes.

Sheldon Alberts , Canwest News Service

[Christopher Hall]

With the two bought-out branches of the American Corporate Party how are we ever going to make any REAL progress - all we can do is avoid extreme horrors [like Bush] for 'ordinary horrors' like Clinton et al.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION.

They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating.

I disagree, Raymond.

I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time.

I know how you feel, because I think that Ross Perot helped facilitate Clinton's 43% landslide win over GHWB.

Christopher - I think you are wrong about both elections. You brought up Perot before and I cited exit surveys which indicated that Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton or Bush in almost equal numbers if he wasn't a candidate Which made sense since he was a centrist candidate.

Nadar's vote was several times Bush's margin of victory in enough states to have shifted the election. Thus even if only a fracton of his voters would have voted for Gore instead of staying at home or voting for another candidate, the world we a re living in would be a very different place

I don't believe the polls to which you refer, Len.

I believe that GHWB would have won if Perot wasn't in the race in 1992.

More importantly, though, GHWB would have won if he had been a better President.

It's Gore's fault that he let the Nader voters get away from him.

I applaud independents and third party candidates.

I hope that their existence starts to influence more races.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time.

Or maybe he had another agenda.

If anyone thinks Nader was ever a REAL candidate for president, consider the latest news on Nader's latest "presidential campaign":

Nader may not make it into the history books as U.S. president, but he is in the Guinness World Records book, his campaign says.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/26/Nad...37081225049393/

[Craig Lamson]

I said I wouldn’t reply any further but I’ll open this one exception because it occurred to me perhaps you need to update the prescription for your reading glasses:

“…the PEW Research Center released data from the first two months of 2008 which showed that across 5,566 interviews with registered voters, party ID is 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 37% Independent. Given the large sample size, that is a useful barometer by which to measure party identification”

Bill McInturff, the lead pollster for McCain and director of Political Opinion Strategies.

Party ID - GOP 35% Dem 42%, Ind. 16%

Fox News

"He's got a very steep hill to climb," said Rove, whose own projections show Obama leading in states with 317 electoral votes.

Sheldon Alberts , Canwest News Service

Shouting will not help the bankruptcy of your position. Someone took a POLL, seemingly missing the INTERNAL WEIGHTING of the respondant sample and then claims that POLL sets the party weighting for election polls. The SPECIAL SAUCE! Quite circular, much like your continued spinning on this issue.

Rove is entilted to his opinion, which we can judge against the actual results as we can mine and yours. I'm quite confident that my position is correct and yours is pure hogwash. In a week we will know.

[Craig Lamson]

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results. Don't be suprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry to disappoint you Craig, but the actual numbers from the primaries prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your theory:

polling numbers from the primaries suggested no presence of a Bradley Effect. On the contrary, it was Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- who somewhat outperformed his polls on Election Day.

On average, Barack Obama overperformed the Pollster.com trendline by 3.3 points on election day.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

As a wise man once said Don't be surprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary. Its a pretty sad attempt at spin to claim when AVERAGED OUT percentage wise he did not underperform. Sad...Really sad. I'm quessing he wont have to worry about underperforming in the FINAL polls, since the race is now for all intents even.

[David G. Healy]

zerOBAMA was a woeful UNDERperformer in the primary polls, generally running many point behind his poll numbers inthe actual results. Don't be suprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry to disappoint you Craig, but the actual numbers from the primaries prove EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your theory:

polling numbers from the primaries suggested no presence of a Bradley Effect. On the contrary, it was Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- who somewhat outperformed his polls on Election Day.

On average, Barack Obama overperformed the Pollster.com trendline by 3.3 points on election day.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

As a wise man once said Don't be surprised to see the same thing happen in the general election.

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary. Its a pretty sad attempt at spin to claim when AVERAGED OUT percentage wise he did not underperform. Sad...Really sad. I'm quessing he wont have to worry about underperforming in the FINAL polls, since the race is now for all intents even.

"...nothing, NOTHING is inevitable." --John McCain 10-28-2008

Evidently Angry Old John has forgot one simple fact: none of us get out of here alive! Now that is inevitable! Is Angry Old John that out-of-touch with reality? And he looks so tired, is he gonna make it till next week?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary.

Here is the evidence I found. Last time I posted it the link did not work properly, but I hope it does now. This chart looks at polls vs actual results in all the primary states and shows that the bold Barack consistently did better in the actual voting than predicted by the polls.

New Hampshire, as we all know, was an exception to the rule.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

I've shown my proof, Craig, now you show us yours.

[Craig Lamson]

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary.

Here is the evidence I found. Last time I posted it the link did not work properly, but I hope it does now. This chart looks at polls vs actual results in all the primary states and shows that the bold Barack consistently did better in the actual voting than predicted by the polls.

New Hampshire, as we all know, was an exception to the rule.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

I've shown my proof, Craig, now you show us yours.

Right here Ray. RCP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...em_results.html

Of real elections, Clinton beat the spread 12 times. Obie beat the spread only 8 times. Both each one one under ths spread.

Result obie underperforms.....