Zogby’s Got Some Really Troubling Poll Numbers Out If You’re An Obama Fan — Which Explains Why I Can’t Find Any Comment On Them From the MSM
Posted by WLS:
ATV/Zogby new poll out today measures the changes in the electorate since it did its first McCain v. Obama matchup back in July. Some very interesting changes have taken place now that Obama is in a real shooting match with someone who disagrees with him on significant issues for the first time in his political career. Keep in mind the numerous flip-flops Obama has committed in his “move to the center” following Hillary’s surrender in mid-June:
1,011 likely voters conducted July 31-Aug. 1 finds Republican Sen. John McCain taking a razor-thin 42%-41% lead over Democrat Sen. Barack Obama …. a notable turn-around from the Reuters/Zogby poll of July 7-9 that showed Obama ahead, 46%-36%
McCain gained 20% and Obama lost 16% among voters ages 18-29. Obama still leads that group, 49%-38%.
Among women, McCain closed 10 points on Obama, who still leads by a 43%-38% margin.
Obama has lost what was an 11% lead among Independents. He and McCain are now tied.
Obama had some slippage among Democrats, dropping from 83% to 74%.
Obama’s support among single voters dropped by 19%, and he now leads McCain, 51%-37%
By region, McCain’s greatest gains came in the Central U.S. and in the West, home to several key battleground states. What was a narrow Obama lead in the Central U.S. is now a 45%-36% McCain edge. In the West, Obama’s 15% lead is gone, and McCain is now ahead, 43%-40%.
Catholics, who are always a critical voting bloc, favored Obama by 11% in mid-July. Now, they favor McCain by 15%.
Now you know why Obama has been flopping around like a lip-hooked bass the last 10 days. Lots of people losing sleep on Team Obama.
Does anyone in Denver smell something burning?
I think its the Clinton campaign phone lines calling superdelegates.
Truly remarkable.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:15 pmThe chickens have come home to roost.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:19 pm“Inflate your tires” may have been a tipping point.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:23 pmSorta like Carter’s “Wear a Sweater.”
If the superdelegates suddenly shift over and pick Clinton to be the nominee, the Democratic party will melt down.
I’d love to see it, but there’s no way they’ll do it.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:31 pmAnybody else prefer to see Obama praised and praised everywhere, virtually going unchallenged, at least in any realistic manner. Then see him have the rug pulled out from under him in the debates?
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:32 pmthe ki.. wanna be president is naked
Mongol (585420) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:33 pmThe Dem convention could be as fantastic a scene as Carter’s was in 1980 – with all of the special interest’s warring factions fighting amongst themselves, live on your TV screen. Good times.
Dmac (c859cf) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:34 pmSteven, weren’t you the one that pointed out (four years ago) that the Dems would never be able to nominate anyone who could win, and never be able to win with anyone they could nominate?
This seems a bit like a three-peat even though the GOP doesn’t deserve to win this one. Anyone who tells me that I should vote for McCain needs to explain this one to me…
As DrewM put it, “Am I the only one who is amazed that the Republican party has nominated someone who is proud to say things like “We’re worse off than we were 4 years ago” and boasts of having “taken on big tobacco, drug companies” while promising to “reform Wall Street and battle big oil”?”
No, Drew, you’re not. Except that I would use words like “disgusted” or “pissed off”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:37 pmI am trying not to laugh. I cannot help it. This is even more amazing given how fucking horrible of a candidate McCain is.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:38 pmThe Dems are truly in a hard spot of their own making. Hill and Bill are too intelligent to try to take the nomination from Obama via the super delegates. Her negatives are high, she wouldn’t have time to reconstitute her campaign and raise money, and most important, it would hugely suppress the black turnout, making her election unlikely and damaging the entire party. She will offer lukewarm support for Obama, hope for his defeat, and plan on running again in 2012 against a really old John McCain. Billy Jeff is already out there bolstering McCain’s claim that Obama is playing the race card, and I expect more such sniping.
jd watson (aecbe4) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:39 pmObama needs to pick his positions finally, and stick to them in a principled way. At this point, no one is going to believe him unless he picks on unpopular view of some sort, but I don’t think he’d even consider doing so.
It’s a shame that he won’t just state his views honestly. It’s pretty central to a fair election that we know what the hell we’re voting for.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:40 pmIt is interesting that Bill Clinton gave an interview on whether he’s a racist or not… now of all times, when Mccain needs as much ‘Obama cries racist’ as possible.
When Bill was asked if Obama is qualified, he answered (and this was recently), that he is according to the constitutional minimums. That’s practically an insult. There is no doubt, and I’m sure Obama’s aware of it, that Bill and Hillary are trying to help Mccain win.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:45 pmHonestly, I’m not sure that Obama has as much to worry about as these poll numbers might indicate. This is a gut reaction from me as I try to remember what I studied regarding public opinion in graduate school.
I think that because Obama is younger and more charismatic, that as his campaign finishes its tack to the center he’ll begin to pull away from McCain.
As a conservative, I wonder if a few years in the wilderness wouldn’t be good for the Republicans.
Fritz (6f6601) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:46 pmBaracky’s wilderness is not a wilderness that I would choose to be wandering around in.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:47 pmThat’s gonna leave a mark.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:48 pmThe reason could of been all of that “Media Love” that Obama got oversees. Thank you Patterico and company for quitting your whining on that subject and realizing that “Media Love” is not always a good thing for a candidate. Sometimes it gives your guy a break and shields his mistakes from the media 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:49 pm” I wonder if a few years in the wilderness wouldn’t be good for the Republicans”
I think you can find the answer to that in the modern UK history. Conservatives have been in the wilderness, the country’s gone down the drain.
Mongol (585420) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:50 pmFritz, you’re forgetting th Bradley Effect…
3 points (or more, maybe 5 or 6) of Sen Obama’s numbers could easily be “I’m going to say I’d vote for him so I don’t appear racist, but in reality I won’t vote for him” points…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:50 pmHonestly, the best thing that could happen to the republicans is to just loose power. Let the democrats take control and show the country how they fail.
Perhaps it could pave the way to another Reagan.
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:53 pmI get the sense that Obi is a puppet and one problem is that he has too many masters, pulling his strings in too many directions. It’s likely the way he has developed up to this point. Been successful up to now, and it’s all he knows.
To take advantage of this Operation Chaos has to renew itself with guerrilla tactics (somehow) to stir up the DNC Convention. Not able to listen–has Rush addressed this?
ManlyDad (22e85d) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:53 pm16. Media Love?
In terms of journalism, (note the difference between editorials) there is no room for picking a side.
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:55 pm“Obama has been flopping around like a lip-hooked bass …” That’s racially coded language that can be easily discerned by experts such as Tim Noah.
gp (72be5d) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:56 pmScott,
You’re right, of course. Racism, for all the strides we’ve taken in the last few decades, is still a powerful force in America.
A professor of mine found that there was just that effect with regards to Mormons and Mitt Romney. Evangelical Christians, at least on some sub-conscious level (to give them the benefit of the doubt), just aren’t ready to vote for a Mormon. At the time, however, gender and race didn’t seem to be working in the same way (or, because the only real choices were a woman and an Africa-American they canceled one another out). Of course, she was looking at the behavior of primary voters. I’ll look around and see if there’s been any analysis of this issue in regards to the general electorate.
Fritz (6f6601) — 8/5/2008 @ 1:59 pmLast week it was all about Gallup.
afall (de7003) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:02 pmIndeed. The fear of being accused without cause is quite a powerful motivator.
And actually, Sen Obama never did quite as well during the primaries as the polls said he should. There was always those couple of points…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:04 pmFor the Republicans, perhaps. For the country, hell no. Eight years of Reagan couldn’t undo half the damage caused by four years of Carter, and this time around, we don’t even have a Reagan figure to pin our hopes on.
Xrlq (b71926) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:08 pmSo because a second poll says the same thing as the first, they can both be ignored?
“Those grapes are probably sour anyway…”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:08 pmWe don’t even have a Gerald Ford…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:09 pm“So because a second poll says the same thing as the first, they can both be ignored?”
Are you talking about Gallup this week? Its hard to follow poll news when people are selective about what they ignore and don’t ignore.
afall (8c8c3d) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:13 pmRacists
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:16 pm28.
ouch
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:16 pmI see afall is trolling again.
Look! Over there! Something shiny!
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:18 pm#28…
Thank Goodness!
For another turning-point in Pres. campaigns (previously mentioned was JC’s sweater), don’t forget Ford’s famous denial of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe.
Another Drew (72143a) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:18 pmWell, I just checked, and they are within the MoE, which says (after taking away the people who lied to the pollster so as not to appear racist) that it isn’t good news for the O!badiahman. And this after promising to go back on his word and bribe the voters with a strategic asset, and after his nine-day-long tongue bath from the MSM?
Ain’t looking good for your team, and I really feel your shame. Hey, If I were supporting Obama, I’d be embarrassed, too.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:18 pmAnother Drew, remember that the GOP is running John “I’ll punish the oil companies and Wall Street” McCain.
I’d rather take a gaffe mistaking “East” for “West” over something that counter-productive ANY day, twice on Sundays and thrice on holidays.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:24 pm“If the superdelegates suddenly shift over and pick Clinton to be the nominee, the Democratic party will melt down.”
Absolutely. Clinton has no money, her campaign is disbanded, and you cant crank up a presidential campaign in 60 days.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:24 pmI was going to say that we could all help out Scott Jacobs, nk, DMac, etc … and vote for Baracky so he could get a new Senator. But then I remembered that he would still have Durbin, and would prolly get Jesse Jr. appointed to the vacated seat.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:26 pmHonestly, I think that is idiotic. It’s one thing to throw a kid in the deep end of the pool. It’s another thing to wish for it to drown as a way of making it learn: “maybe when he gets reincarnated, he’ll be a better swimmer.”
Life doesnt work that way. Reagan created Reagan, not Carter. And we didnt recover from FDR or LBJ … ever. Same with Obama. USA’s pain, nobody’s gain.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:26 pmReminded of a post-USSR sign/slogan. “70 years on the road to nowhere.”
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:30 pmTrue. The only thing Carter created was the size of Reagan’s majority in the 1980 election.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:31 pmToday I saw Gary Mauro on Fox. He was saying that the Howard Dean segment of the DNC doesn’t want a the typical first vote that has taken place in all the DNC conventions. In other words, Hillary would be able to be on the first ballot and then, it would be another vote, once she was eliminated to nominate Barack Obama.
Unfortunately for Obama, he continues to piss off the Hillsupporters. After he fought so hard to uphold the decision to seat only half of Florida and Michigan delegates, he came out two days ago and said that he wanted all Florida and Michigan delegates seated. The Hillsupporters see this as a ploy to try to take Florida away from McCain and lessen the anger against him.
Those voters who backed Hillary has heard nothing for the last eight years how the election was stolen by George Bush and that every vote should count. Hillary took the popular vote, her supporters know it and they are really angry with Dean because they feel the Dean Factor forced Hillary out with granting Obama delegates from the “undecided” voters in Michigan. Since Obama operatives were in Michigan encouraging voters to vote “undecided” Hillsupporters feel like the fix was already in and the deck was stacked against their candidate. They argued, and I think rightfully so, that “undecided” meant exactly that and those delegates should have not been awared to anyone, especially not Obama who was not on the ticket by his choice.
Now you have groups like “Recreate ’68” out there that could also promise the DNC convention to be well worth your price of the popcorn.
retire05 (d01e1c) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:34 pm38. Fair enough. I just think with all these people and their BDS is pathetic. Trust me, I’d much, much rather see McCain win than Obama.
G (722480) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:35 pm“Look! Over there! Something shiny!”
The other day I started a post along the lines of “i don’t think that….” and then made a point about demand and supply in the oil/gasoline market.
You clipped it to “i don’t think” and made some snark.
That’s silly shit. Unoriginal too. Can you promise not to do that anymore? Thanks.
afall (de7003) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:42 pmHowever, afall, now that I have looked, and have seen that O! and McAmnesty are in a statistical dead heat, what was your original point?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:48 pmMcCain gained 20% and Obama lost 16% among voters ages 18-29. Obama still leads that group, 49%-38%
That just screams “outlier”. SUSA has that bracket (18-34, actually) at 60/40 Obama today in FL. AP/Ipsos has a junky new poll with Obama up 6. They oversampled Dems and the 18-29 group pretty heavily to get there.
Averaging the daily RAS and Gallup numbers is probably a lot closer to the truth.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:53 pmDrum @ #35…
I am reminded that “you go to war with the Army you have”…
We’re not going to fight an election with the two best candidates, but with the two we have; and, we have to be satisfied with electing the lessor of two evils (as always).
Another Drew (72143a) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:54 pmafall — its a new poll out today, and it specifically measures the change in the electorate — and the sub-demographics within the electorate — compared to where they were a month ago.
Gallup has Obama +4 today.
Of note, however, is that Gallup today lists its poll as among Registered Voters, not Likely Voters.
Now, I might have a faulty memory, but I could have sworn that last week Gallup’s tracking poll and Rasmussen’s trackign poll were both among “Likely Voters.” The USA Today/Gallup poll that showed McCain +4 was a poll of “Likely voters,” as they explained in the analysis piece that accompanied it.
But, feel free to disregard this Zogby poll — you’ll sleep better.
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 2:57 pmForty-three comments and no one’s mentioned we’re talking about a Zogby poll of “likely voters,” i.e. it 1) weighs participation in past elections heavily, and 2) well, I can’t top its own description:
Translation: Zogby polls aren’t merely tendentious, they almost entirely reflect how self-styled Republicans and Democrats feel about their party’s respective candidates. Just because he nailed Clinton’s margin of victory in ’96 doesn’t mean he’s worth listening to.
But don’t take my word for it. Read Mark Blumenthal’s summary of pollsters’ methodologies and choose the one you think most accurately reflects the will of American voters in the current political climate.
SEK (64b2fe) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:05 pmWhen you pick the lesser of two evils, you are guaranteed to not only get evil, but less. The tough choices never boil down to good vs. evil, or right vs wrong, but balancing damages.
I’m not voting for any of the current crop because none of them rise to that minimum level of acceptability I require. Yes, they are all Constitutionally qualified, but so is more than half the population.
But since I’m here in California, my vote would be essentially wasted anyway. So I’m going to stick to the lower-level candidates and local issues, because that is where I can make a difference. (If I were allowed to comment on any of those issues, that is…)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:06 pmafall – I will make you a deal. No more “silly shit” when you start commenting on topic, take an actual position, and defend it.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:06 pm(Seems five more comments showed up while I composed mine. FTR, I can count, er, tell the difference between a three and an eight.)
SEK (64b2fe) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:07 pmGallup Daily Tracking is RV – RAS is LV. Gallup has a new interactive graph that’s kinda cute. It’s pretty safe to subtract the MOE from the Dem side of the Gallup daily – not quite so safe to add it to the Rep side.
Rick Ballard (0a8990) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:12 pm“afall – I will make you a deal. No more “silly shit” when you start commenting on topic, take an actual position, and defend it.”
I made a point about supply and demand curves. A point I later defended. So that’s both of your wishes. I don’t need deals. I’m just asking.
afall (4e98c6) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:13 pm“But then I remembered that he would still have Durbin…”
If you happen to reside in IL, you’re well aware that you’re completely screwed these days – and the huge Dem majorities in every branch of state gov’t still can’t get a budget done without massive amounts of figment accounting and kicking the can down the road to eternity. But the GOP is to blame here as well for this mess – their politicos were/are as corrupt as the Dems, and usually in bed with them to boot. Welcome to New Jersey, boys and girls!
Dmac (c859cf) — 8/5/2008 @ 3:57 pmDMac – The IL Republican party needs to get Harold Smith back in charge.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:12 pmI’d settle for Jim Edgar at this point.
Dmac (c859cf) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:20 pmPolls mean nothing. Right wls?
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:42 pmThen don’t ever talk about how “popular” Obama is.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:49 pmPolls or no polls, Obama upstages McCain any day.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/5/2008 @ 4:59 pmJust watch them both and tell me who’s more popular and exciting. McCain? Nah…
The polls say they’re pretty much tied among those that actually count (likely voters), so you’re wrong. Again.
Color. Me. Sur(*yawn*)prised.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:13 pm“Then don’t ever talk about how “popular” Obama is.”
When people talk about his popularity or celbrity status, I don’t think they’re referring to his poll numbers.
afall (4fe3dc) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:14 pmBut what is popularity but a snapshot poll of the audience? Polls are merely attempt to measure that popularity among the desired audience.
Just ask Galinda and Elphaba.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:17 pm“But what is popularity but a snapshot poll of the audience?”
Popularity is the large turnout for his events. When he’s criticized as a ‘celebrity’ its not because he’s polling a few points higher. Its because he has a lot of fans, which is different than a lot of people tell pollsters that they will vote for him.
afall (7c85b9) — 8/5/2008 @ 5:41 pmafall — you mean like the turnouts he enjoyed at campaign events in Ohio and Pennsylvania?
WLS (26b1e5) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:07 pmCompared with what? You can’t point at a crowd of thousands if tens of thousands decided to go to a concert instead. The term is “self-selecting”.
It must be compared to the population of the area or region, and include any other factors.
How many are there for the easy women? How many for the free food and drinks? How many for the rock bands that are performing? How many people chose to go to a political rally rather than go to (say) work? Or the movies or shopping or out for a meal or sitting and home and channel-surfing?
Yes, he will win the thousand votes inside the auditorium, but what about the tens of thousands who didn’t show up? He could get 20,000 people to show up in Orange County, but that doesn’t mean he would win the OC…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:07 pm“Just watch them both and tell me who’s more popular and exciting.”
If you’re the type who’s “excited” by bland pronouncements and rhetoric designed to reveal absolutely nothing of substance, then you’ve got me on that score. Just wait until his screaming acolytes in Denver are finished with his ginormous stadium speech – they’ll be fainting with excitement, while the TV audience will be creeped out beyond belief.
Dmac (c859cf) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:14 pm> Does anyone in Denver smell something burning?
I think its the Clinton campaign phone lines calling superdelegates.
So does this mean that Obama’s call for the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated might bite him in the ass? I think the Fl delegates are mostly Hillary – aren’t the MI delegates almost ALL Hillary or did that change in the wheeling and dealing a few months ago.
Arthur (d6aba7) — 8/5/2008 @ 6:30 pmI would love to see Obama trying to debate McCain.
Evil Pundit (646727) — 8/5/2008 @ 7:34 pm“afall — you mean like the turnouts he enjoyed at campaign events in Ohio and Pennsylvania?”
What were those?
“Compared with what? You can’t point at a crowd of thousands if tens of thousands decided to go to a concert instead. The term is “self-selecting”.”
Have I entered la-la land where he wasn’t just last week being criticized for being a celebrity? Jeezus.
“He could get 20,000 people to show up in Orange County, but that doesn’t mean he would win the OC…”
You’re so close to getting it. “Popular” does not meant “winning in polls.”
afall (602184) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:02 pmA celebrity who has done nothing to actually earn it, which is why the analogy drawn was to Paris Hilton.
How else does one determine what – or who – is “popular”? Show of hands in a studio audience? Head count of passers-by? Secret ballot? Telephone survey? Number of admission tickets or albums sold?
How are those not all considered polls, with the data being determined differently, even if not necessarily “scientifically”?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:14 pm“How else does one determine what – or who – is “popular”? ”
Magazine covers? Their opponents attack them for the large turnout and adoration of their fans? They fill stadiums? “popular” measures something different than someone’s output in the election? I mean, c’mmon, the attack last week was about this: spears and hilton are “popular” but they wouldn’t win shit in the election.
But maybe there is no way to determine it outside of polls, and the word “popular” is meaningless outside of polls.
“How are those not all considered polls, with the data being determined differently, even if not necessarily “scientifically”?”
When I think of polls, I think of statistical techniques that attempt to correctly sample a population and conduct a well designed survey of that sample in order to come up with an estimate for how the overall population will behave. I don’t think of “OMG he has 200K screaming German fans” and “he has the Decemberists opening for him!”
afall (ef3b4a) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:26 pmTry adapting that definition and seeing how well it fits a rock band’s concert tour ticket sales.
“Statistical techniques” = counting the number of heads through the doors
“correctly sample a population” (even though an election doesn’t even do this, for various reasons) = advance sales through Ticketmaster
Etc, etc.
The better the group does, the more popular they are.
The more people that show up at their concert, the more popular they are.
The more people show up to vote for him, the more popular the politician is.
Polls are an allegedly scientific attempt to determine how popular the candidate or issue is. Because there is no real way to adequately randomize the sample, they build in margins of error, and hope that the results actually work out that way. Just ask President Dewey how well that can work out some time…
Even so, the only real poll that counts is the one that happens in November.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/5/2008 @ 8:46 pm“Try adapting that definition and seeing how well it fits a rock band’s concert tour ticket sales.”
For one, that won’t involve sampling. That’s actually your population there. Records sold is another measure. Both absolutely measure audience. Which I guess is why the comparisons to Obama are being made, why I’ve heard him called (not always by supporters) a rock star.
“The more people show up to vote for him, the more popular the politician is.”
But you’re still not getting that people vote for politicians for reasons other than popularity. Have you ever heard of an election or other decision being referred to as a “popularity contest” ? That’s done derisively, you know.
“Polls are an allegedly scientific attempt to determine how popular the candidate or issue is. ”
‘Allegedly’? Why ‘alledgly’? And haven’t you yet gotten that ‘how popular’ is at best ambiguous?
Polls are attempting to estimate how the population will answer the questions in the poll. If the question asks “who is more popular” then the polls attempt to estimate who is the most popular candidate. If the question asks “who are you voting for,” then the poll is an attempt to estimate how the population will answer THAT question. Thats about what they do that I would call ‘scientific.’
Don’t worry about this. Obama has a lot of fans. That don’t mean he’s going to win. The Beastie Boys have a lot of fans too. That don’t mean they’re going to win either.
afall (1d0ada) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:07 pmThe absolutely biggest point:
In 2004, John François Kerry won 89% of the votes of Democrats. If after four years of unceasing criticism of George Bush, and a series of scandals which have hit Republican lawmakers, Barack Hussein Obama has that much less support amongst Democrats than did Senator Kerry, there’s a decent chance that our friends on the left will be wailing and gnashing their teeth come November 5th.
Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/6/2008 @ 3:19 amNo! Sleep! Till Brooklyn!
Dmac (c859cf) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:34 amNothing to see here. Move along. Polls only count when the Dems are leading.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:39 amMuch like DNA evidence is only important when it may support Nancy Grace’s predictions of guilt. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:43 amThat may very well be, and people can attend concerts for reasons not having to do with the band, but a poll is nothing more than a snapshot of relative popularity of a given candidate or issue.
Whether it’s a sample or the entire population, it’s still a poll.
When the voting booths are finally opened to the public, that fact will be announced with the words “The polls are open!” (Or some minor variant.)
Not unless everyone makes a decision to attend. That is my point.
When you point at a candidate and say, “He’s popular”, you are using a poll result to back up the claim, even if it is 200K crowds in a spot where no one’s opinion truly matters.
But those crowds are self-selecting, like an Internet poll. Those people heard about the option and decided to go there rather than hang out at the Quick Shop with Randal and Dante, but when you are talking about popularity in general, you have to compare it to the potential audience that could have been gotten.
Which is why I pointed at the Orange County example. Yes, he could have a screaming crowd of 20,000 people show up and cheer him on, and people could point at that crowd and say, “See how popular he is?”
My point is that said admirer would miss the fact that there were literally millions of others who decided NOT to show up, because there was (say) a new shoe display at Gottschalk’s that was more important.
My point is that you can’t say “the polls don’t matter” and “my candidate is popular”, because the two statements are contradictory.
You cannot measure popularity without a poll of some sort, and no matter what factors go into a decision on an individual level to cause someone to vote for one candidate or another, the collective force of all those individual decisions adds up to popularity.
Think “American Idol”.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/6/2008 @ 6:51 am“poll is nothing more than a snapshot of relative popularity of a given candidate or issue.”
It’s not. It’s an attempt to estimate how a population will behave by surveying a sample of that population. You can design a poll to try to measure popularity, but popularity and getting votes aren’t quite the same. Popularity has the connotations of fandom, of having a large draw. Thats different than getting votes. Like I said, the beastie boys would get big crowds. But they wouldn’t win. This distinction is the essence of the critique against Obama’s large draws.
afall (dfd808) — 8/6/2008 @ 9:49 amYou may recall that on the morning of the last election for President, news was spewing forth that exit polls indicated that Kerry was kicking Bush’s butt. That news rather discouraged me and I thought about how clueless the American voter must really be. Of course the early on exit polls were BS. Unless you believe the conspiracy theory that the fix was in and Diebold controlled the numbers.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:05 amOk, so some want to vote for the winner. Wonder what the breakdown would have been in people who say the heck with it and don’t wait in line and those who think well, it is in the bag and my vote won’t make any difference,
Here in Fla. on the night of the Bush-Gore contest, network news was predicting Fla. going for Gore even though the polls in the Panhandle (Central Time) remained open.
I first voted for POTUS in ’68 and in forty years have never been polled about politics. I’m sure they’ve tried, but I don’t bother answering a phone if I don’t know who it is or if I know it may be some asshat with slanted questions.
Back when I was precinct Inspector (in charge of a specific polling place), I would go out and tell jokes to those waiting in line, just to try and keep them entertained until they got up to the sign-in table.
The largest turnout we ever had was for the Gray Davis recall, at just over 80% for the precinct. (That’s on the high side of 1,100 voters through the door in 13 hours.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/6/2008 @ 10:11 amI believe in Minister Obama! I tried to inflate my tires like he suggested but it made my lips get real dirty and now I have tire breath. I will stand proud and vote for Minister Obama as many times as I can in November because he will win in at least 53 of our 57 states and Canada!
Onward (c69119) — 8/7/2008 @ 5:28 pm