So if Obama wins, that's democracy at work. If McCain wins, the fix is in, right?

[-Jrabbit]

If there is evidence of significant vote fraud or undue disenfranchisement, then there's a fix (or attempted fix). If not, then not. Applies to both parties.

= banana

How difficult is that?

[Naked Gents Rut]

I have noticed that the McCain campaign has now resorted to lying about what their internals show (or is lying to themselves about it). You know a campaign's reached the end of its rope when it does that.

I'll get the lowdown tomorrow from my friend who's plugged in with the McCain camp. The internals weren't looking good at all the last time I asked him.

[KrazyHorse]

Previously respected McCain pollsters have taken to saying publicly that their internals show them within 3 in PA, that they're also within 3 or 4 nationally etc.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I'll get the lowdown tomorrow from my friend who's plugged in with the McCain camp. The internals weren't looking good at all the last time I asked him.

Really? When was the last time you asked him? This article is dated the 29th.

With only five days left until Election Day, John McCain's campaign aides seem happier than they have been in a while. For the last few days, the campaign has been increasingly buoyed by what it says has been improvement in its internal polling of 14 battleground states. Aides see a tightening race in states that are crucial to their long-shot march to 270 votes and victory. Even McCain himself is upbeat. "He's been happy for the last few days," says one aide. "That's a change."

http://www.slate.com/id/2203341/

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah, this line of thinking is based solely opn the fact that Obama:

1. Leads in all national polls and leads in enough state polls to win the electoral college handily.

2. Generates far more enthusiasm than McCain, if we are to judge by donations, volunteers, and crowd size.

So, its easy to say that the guy leading in the polls, getting the most volunteers, the most campaing contributions, and largest crowds, winning equals dmeocracy, but if the guy trailing in polls, volunteers, contributions, and crowds, somehow wins, there might be something funny going on.

Ever hear the phrase "silent majority"? For every person that goes to candidate X's rally and cheers a lot, there could be five people who vote against X. Severe polling discrepancies would certainly matter a lot, and probably enough for even my apathetic ass to be out there protesting, but "enthusiasim" doesn't mean **** to anyone objective.

[KrazyHorse]

So either they're polling geniuses and everybody else is an idiot, they're leaning on the polls, they're cherry-picking or they're straight up lying.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Ever hear the phrase "silent majority"?

That "silent majority" is probably mainly composed of the 35%-40% of Americans who never vote anymore.

[Deity Dude]

I understand stats and actually took quite a few stat classes. I am by no means a statistician but I understand them. I understand how they use confidence intervals to come up with the margin of error. It just seems in reality the theory doesn't always work.

For example, Poll A has candidate A winning by 11 points with a 3% margin of error and poll B has him winning by 3 points with a 3% margin of error. Now I am assuming in order to be in charge of poll A and B you have to have a pretty good statistical background but yet the above result is impossible.

Now I realize why people will say Poll A is more precise or accurate than B but they both profess to have the same margin of error yet they result in an incompatible outcome.

Again without being an expert, I believe the polls are accurate in the fact that they asked X number of people that they somehow feel is an accurate representation and came up with a result that they publish. But, I think they always underestimate the margin of error. If they didn't the polls would always be within the outer bounds of the margin of error and you would expect them to group around a central point.

Now I do believe that polls are much more accurate than antecdotal estimates. And never being polled is not a valid reason to assume a poll is incorrect. I am, however, of the somewhat proven opinion that at least some of the polls are not accurate within the margin of error they claim to be. And once you accept that fact, then you must also accept that you can't say which if any are accurate and how large the true margin of error is with certainty.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
That "silent majority" is probably mainly composed of the 35%-40% of Americans who never vote anymore.

I don't necessarily disagree. It's just that myriad measures of enthusiasm are absolutely ridiculous to use as predictors of electoral outcomes.

[Naked Gents Rut]

So either they're polling geniuses and everybody else is an idiot, they're leaning on the polls, they're cherry-picking or they're straight up lying.

The polls in general seem like a crapshoot this year, given that no one really knows what the turnout is going to be like. A lot of the public polls seem overly optimistic about Dem turnout, but the McCain internals seem to have the opposite problem, if they're not lying about the results.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
Don't more repugs have unlisted #s though? So they can't be polled, right?

I don't believer polling subjects are chosen randomly. Rather, the survey wants a scientifically composed group which will accurately reflect the demographics of society.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
A lot of the public polls seem overly optimistic about Dem turnout

???

From what I understand most of the polls are using the same turnout determinants they've always used, which given the situation would seem to underrepresent Dem turnout.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I don't believer polling subjects are chosen randomly. Rather, the survey wants a scientifically composed group which will accurately reflect the demographics of society.

I can blow that right out of the water Zkrib. They called me.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
the survey wants a scientifically composed group which will accurately reflect the demographics of society.

Ideally, yes. In reality all pollsters are off on their weightings.

[GePap]

The youth turnout has been relatively low in the states where they have held early voting, but the African American turnout has been much larger than anticipated.

Though, given Obama's ground organization in many universities, the youth turnout should be larger than in the last two election cycles.