New Poll

[LL2]

Ok, I couldn't find that poll thread...sorry to start a new one.

This new AP poll shows the presidential race pretty much at dead even. You never really know what poll to believe hald the time, no matter who puts it out. This poll stats likely voters, which I think is key. I think this is going to be a much closer race than most of those polls showing Obama with an 8-10 point lead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_poll_presidential_race

[hoosier]

Much more meaningful to look at an average of recent polls, since individual polls can be flawed or skewed for other reasons.

RealClearPolitics shows Obama leading by an average of 6.8% in recent polls (Oct 15-21). It's likely that the final vote tallies will be a little closer than that, since McCain has been severely underpeforming to date and traditional Republicans may well switch back to him at the end of the day. But I don't think it's going to be THAT close.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

[sheepshead]

I say the Bradley effect is worth 6 points - more in some states, if Barry isn't up by 10 after Halloween, it ain't gonna happen I'm afraid.

[SkinBasket]

One of these elections people will figure out that even the most even handed polls are fucked for a variety of respondent based reasons, and the poorly run polls are doubly fucked. Guess the networks need something to talk about though and it's not like it hurts anyone.

[Joemailman]

The AP poll may be slightly outdated. It ran from 10/16 to 10/20, so some of those opinions are a week old. The polls that have run from 10/19-10/21 show Obama with a lead from 5-10 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[hoosier]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

[MadScientist]

Well the two outliers over the last 2 days are Obama +1 and Obama +14. If you average them you get +7.5 which is in line with the other polls.

As for the Bradley effect, more recent analysis finds no evidence for it, not only in current elections, but in the 1982 election for which it was named.

[LL2]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

I agree with your statement about the Bradley Effect. I do not think that many people lie about whether or not they are voting for a black person today as they did 30 years ago. I could be wrong, but the percentage that do has to be pretty small today. I'm in Gen X. Gen X and Gen Y make up a pretty sizable percentage of voters today, and I don't think these two group would fall into the Bredley Effect. I would have to be the older Boomer Generation and older, but these two groups tend to fall into the "most likely" to vote category.

[HowardRoark]

Wilder had the same "effect"......I believe in 1990.

[sheepshead]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

I agree with your statement about the Bradley Effect. I do not think that many people lie about whether or not they are voting for a black person today as they did 30 years ago. I could be wrong, but the percentage that do has to be pretty small today. I'm in Gen X. Gen X and Gen Y make up a pretty sizable percentage of voters today, and I don't think these two group would fall into the Bredley Effect. I would have to be the older Boomer Generation and older, but these two groups tend to fall into the "most likely" to vote category.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178

[hoosier]

This will be an interesting year to compare polling predictions with actual numbers. ON one hand the undecided voters who can't make up their minds till they get into the polling booth (and who sometimes spend a enternity hemming and hawing once they're in the booth) tend to be moderate to conservative in their political leanings. On the other hand, most polls don't call cell phones, which excludes from polling numbers a signficant group of younger adults, and who are predominantly supporters of Obama. It wouldn't be surprising to see either candidate get a 3-5% bounce between the last polls and the election tallies.

[sheepshead]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

how in the HELL would you know that??The first brother on the ticket and the first chick on the GOP side and YOU know how to read these polls? Gimme a break.

BTW every poll is wrong and every poll favors the dems in the last 40 years. Every one. If he aint winnin' by a bunch in every poll, he aint winnin'

My Friend.

[hoosier]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

I agree with your statement about the Bradley Effect. I do not think that many people lie about whether or not they are voting for a black person today as they did 30 years ago. I could be wrong, but the percentage that do has to be pretty small today. I'm in Gen X. Gen X and Gen Y make up a pretty sizable percentage of voters today, and I don't think these two group would fall into the Bredley Effect. I would have to be the older Boomer Generation and older, but these two groups tend to fall into the "most likely" to vote category.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178

Your link doesn't open. Why don't you summarize (or cut and paste) the relevant parts so we don't have to click on your links and then try to figure out what part of the page you want us to look at? After FINALLY getting the link to open I still have no idea what is supposed to be new in this. It just looks like repetition of your earlier post.

[hoosier]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

how in the HELL would you know that??The first brother on the ticket and the first chick on the GOP side and YOU know how to read these polls? Gimme a break.

BTW every poll is wrong and every poll favors the dems in the last 40 years. Every one. If he aint winnin' by a bunch in every poll, he aint winnin'

My Friend.

Whatever you say, Muttonhead. :lol:

[sheepshead]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

[packinpatland]

You give me a bad time for reading MSNBC, CNN, or CBS and you cite Ann Coulter?

[arcilite]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

how in the HELL would you know that??The first brother on the ticket and the first chick on the GOP side and YOU know how to read these polls? Gimme a break.

BTW every poll is wrong and every poll favors the dems in the last 40 years. Every one. If he aint winnin' by a bunch in every poll, he aint winnin'

My Friend.

"There is little doubt Obama is losing some votes due to his race; a recent Associated Press survey suggested that as many as 6 percent of the electorate may be voting against Obama because he is black. But that's not what the Bradley effect is about. As long as those prejudiced voters are telling pollsters that they're going to vote for McCain, their sentiments will be reflected accurately in the polling. The Bradley effect emerges when voters tell pollsters one thing and then do another at the ballot booth.

So the question is why, if a voter does not intend to vote for Obama, would he or she feel compelled to lie about it? There are perfectly legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama; a voter who wanted to vote against him because of his race would have little trouble rationalizing his vote. If a voter felt compelled to lie to a pollster, he might tell them that he was voting against Obama because of his inexperience or his liberal politics—when, in fact, he was voting against him because of his race. But the pollster would still tally the vote correctly in the McCain column. By contrast, in cases where the Bradley effect existed, including Bradley's race itself, the black candidate was as much or more experienced than the white opponent. So voters found it harder to excuse their racism and may have misstated their voting intention to pollsters as a result." Took that from somewhere else. But its entirely right.


Bradley effect won't have as much effect as you people think. But the polls are still skewered for both sides. We won't really know until Nov 4th.

[sheepshead]

You give me a bad time for reading MSNBC, CNN, or CBS and you cite Ann Coulter?

who else is going to discuss this? Keith Olbermann?

[packinpatland]

You always have Rush :lol:

[sheepshead]

Are you married?


8-)

[packinpatland]

Are you married?


8-)

I can't imagine what that has to do with anything. :lol:

[sheepshead]

flirting actually

[packinpatland]

I'm probably old enough to be your mother.........or grandmother :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm probably old enough to be your mother.........or grandmother :oops:

Cougar!!!!

[mraynrand]

I'm probably old enough to be your mother.........or grandmother :oops:

Cougar!!!!

Viper!!!!!!

[HowardRoark]

I'm probably old enough to be your mother.........or grandmother :oops:

Cougar!!!!

Viper!!!!!!

Maverick!!!!!

[sheepshead]

I'm probably old enough to be your mother.........or grandmother :oops:

Try Me!

[MJZiggy]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. You don't measure up. Time to give up and move on.

[mraynrand]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. [b]You don't measure up.[\b] Time to give up and move on.

How would you know?

[bobblehead]

I read ann, but this thread is about polls...post her article where she coyly titled it...87% of people say they would never lie to a pollster.

that said, dems poll better than they actually perform usually (I won't get into why). A national black might poll a bit better yet. All that factored in, a pisspoor exuse for a republican isn't going to win a national election. This will be a landslide obama win with mccain losing almost every swing state. He'll win texas, and a lot of the bible belt, but he won't win any of those that bush won...ohio, florida, pennsylvania...ect. If bush were running again he wouldn't win them either.

[Joemailman]

I suspect Bobblehead has it about right. Because of Bush's unpopularity, this is a tough year to be a Republican. In my humble opinion, McCain's inability to establish how his Presidency will be different than Bush is an albatross around his neck. Obama has done a good job of tying McCain to Bush and won't let go. If I were a Republican, I'd be wishing Romney had been the nominee. His success running a business might be reassuring to some people, and it wouldn't be as easy to tie him to Bush.

[texaspackerbacker]

The so called "Bradley effect" is both overrated and dated, my friend. Responses by white voters when asked about black candidates can be skewed, but not nearly as much and not nearly as frequently as the "Bradley effect" purports. That theory also fails to take into account traditional Repubs who might be unwilling to admit to wanting to vote for a Dem or a black candidate.

Polls can certainly be wrong, as the 2000 elections showed. But race is only one factor among many, and probably not as significant today as it was in the early 1980s.

The Bradley Effect is outdated ........ just like racism is outdated.

And racism gets more and more alive and well with every dirty deal that comes along to inflict the ultra-leftist black candidate on us. The ignominious example of Powell selling out his lifetime of serving America for the cause of black racism is the prime recent example. I'm confident that the well-justified backlash will greatly outweigh the benefit "that one" realizes from Powell's act of treachery.

As for the polls, I'm not optimistic at this point, but I'm not particularly pessimistic either. I concur with Sheepshead's estimate of 6% error in favor of the black candidate due to the Bradley Effect. Harder to calculate, however, is the "Palin Effect", which is a "reverse Bradley-type effect" where women would be very unlikely to tell pollsters they are voting for the ticket with a female VP candidate, but they are likely to do so, just the same.

Another bad day for the stock market, though, combined with the leftist mainstream media's highly successful propaganda promoting the economy as the #1 issue, along with its equally successful sales job that the black candidate--whose party was mostly responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal that is the root of the contrived economic crisis, enhance Obama's chances of getting to the point of having a true lead, regardless of any polling flaws.

The bad guys have really played the game of politics a lot better than the good guys this time around. America will be damn lucky to dodge the huge bullet coming its way--the inflicting of an Obama presidency on us--with all the horrendous consequences of that--terrorist hits at the top of the list.

It ain't looking good right now. I'd give McCain about an equal chance to win as the Packers have of going to the Super Bowl this season. I would not, however, bet against either.

[MJZiggy]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. [b]You don't measure up.[\b] Time to give up and move on.

How would you know?

Sometimes the measure of a man takes more than a ruler...

[Zool]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. [b]You don't measure up.[\b] Time to give up and move on.

How would you know?

Sometimes the measure of a man takes more than a ruler...

And other times it explains all you need to know.

[sheepshead]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. You don't measure up. Time to give up and move on.

Listen, you have a habit of sticking your nose in everyone's business. I might slam stupid threads, but I happen to think it makes for a better forum. That's just my opinion. It's never personal with me, I just question things that I believe are so outrageous, they cant be ignored. Why don't you try to stay on topic, add something other than personal attacks and try to be a nice person for once?

You don't know me, you know nothing about me. If you want to know anything about me or comment about me personally, private message me. Otherwise it doesn't belong on this forum.

[Zool]

Dude, she's happily married to a wonderful man. You don't measure up. Time to give up and move on.

Listen, you have a habit of sticking your nose in everyone's business. I might slam stupid threads, but I happen to think it makes for a better forum. That's just my opinion. It's never personal with me, I just question things that I believe are so outrageous, they cant be ignored. Why don't you try to stay on topic, add something other than personal attacks and try to be a nice person for once?

You don't know me, you know nothing about me. If you want to know anything about me or comment about me personally, private message me. Otherwise it doesn't belong on this forum.

So you can say whatever you want without consequence, but no one else is? Try again skippy.

[sheepshead]

No, there's a distinct difference. My posts are not personal. I never slam the poster, just the post. Now some take it way too personal. I sure as hell don't jump on a thread with the sole purpose of lashing out at someone with personal attacks.

[Zool]

Cant have it both ways. You cant talk shit and then ask for some sort of reprieve because your mangina gets hurt. If you're respectful thats what you get in return.

[sheepshead]

Cant have it both ways. You cant talk shit and then ask for some sort of reprieve because your mangina gets hurt. If you're respectful thats what you get in return.

Read it again, youre missing the point and scroll back on this thread.

[Zool]

I might slam stupid threads, but I happen to think it makes for a better forum.

This isnt really that hard for you to get is it? If you talk shit about someone or their ideas or opinion, you're going to get retaliation. You happen to choose to talk shit about peoples opinions. They are going to talk shit about you, either the person you chose or someone else.

Also, you cant tell people what to post and not to post. They can post whatever they want.

[LL2]

I read ann, but this thread is about polls...post her article where she coyly titled it...87% of people say they would never lie to a pollster.

that said, dems poll better than they actually perform usually (I won't get into why). A national black might poll a bit better yet. All that factored in, a pisspoor exuse for a republican isn't going to win a national election. This will be a landslide obama win with mccain losing almost every swing state. He'll win texas, and a lot of the bible belt, but he won't win any of those that bush won...ohio, florida, pennsylvania...ect. If bush were running again he wouldn't win them either.

I'm afraid you might be right. Who knows...having Obama win might be a blessing in disguise. We can sit and watch how his corrupt policies screw up this country. The thing is most in the media will not print/air them though, after all Obama is their guy. I was listening to a conservative radio station here in Chicago yesterday and they were reading off the list of Hollywood donors/supporters of Obama and the list had to be a page or two long. Obama had become a liberal media/hollywood machine. I can't wait to see the 1 million people that will show up at his victory parade in downtown Chicago (at taxpayers expense for sure). :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

No, there's a distinct difference. My posts are not personal. I never slam the poster, just the post. Now some take it way too personal. I sure as hell don't jump on a thread with the sole purpose of lashing out at someone with personal attacks.

You're dealing with really SHALLOW people, Sheepshead. How many different threads degenerate like this to personal crap? It's kinda pathetic.

[Zool]

No, there's a distinct difference. My posts are not personal. I never slam the poster, just the post. Now some take it way too personal. I sure as hell don't jump on a thread with the sole purpose of lashing out at someone with personal attacks.

You're dealing with really SHALLOW people, Sheepshead. How many different threads degenerate like this to personal crap? It's kinda pathetic.

Yet you call peoples opinions moronic on an almost daily basis.

[sheepshead]

I might slam stupid threads, but I happen to think it makes for a better forum.

This isnt really that hard for you to get is it? If you talk shit about someone or their ideas or opinion, you're going to get retaliation. You happen to choose to talk shit about peoples opinions. They are going to talk shit about you, either the person you chose or someone else.

Also, you cant tell people what to post and not to post. They can post whatever they want.

lighten up man, really

[Zool]

I was gonna tell you the same thing.

[HowardRoark]

I honestly don’t notice many personal attacks here. Certain people here have their little back and forth routines that they do with each other, but these are based on a long history (and they/we seem to know the boundries).

[packinpatland]

I read ann, but this thread is about polls...post her article where she coyly titled it...87% of people say they would never lie to a pollster.

that said, dems poll better than they actually perform usually (I won't get into why). A national black might poll a bit better yet. All that factored in, a pisspoor exuse for a republican isn't going to win a national election. This will be a landslide obama win with mccain losing almost every swing state. He'll win texas, and a lot of the bible belt, but he won't win any of those that bush won...ohio, florida, pennsylvania...ect. If bush were running again he wouldn't win them either.

I'm afraid you might be right. Who knows...having Obama win might be a blessing in disguise. We can sit and watch how his corrupt policies screw up this country. The thing is most in the media will not print/air them though, after all Obama is their guy. I was listening to a conservative radio station here in Chicago yesterday and they were reading off the list of Hollywood donors/supporters of Obama and the list had to be a page or two long. Obama had become a liberal media/hollywood machine. I can't wait to see the 1 million people that will show up at his victory parade in downtown Chicago (at taxpayers expense for sure). :roll:



When teams win the World Series or Super Bowl, come back to their home town, who pays for the parades?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cant have it both ways. You cant talk shit and then ask for some sort of reprieve because your mangina gets hurt. If you're respectful thats what you get in return.

Read it again, youre missing the point and scroll back on this thread.

Do you not see how insulting this is?

[MJZiggy]

What the hell, why not?

More polls (actually it's comparing candidates' popularity now vs. after the Republican Convention).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402698.html?hpid=topnews