|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 16, 2008 6:33:47 GMT -8
And note carefully the example poll that you are selecting.
The CBS/New York Times.
Which doesn't poll people in Dogshit Nebraska.
Remember something. Statistics is an interesting science, but it's not even remotely accurate. You can poll 100 people in a single city and by pure luck find the only 100 people in the entire city who think an idea is bad or good.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Oct 16, 2008 7:08:08 GMT -8
You're reaching, Jard.
The fact of the matter is that pretty much every single poll, including those by pollsters with Republican leans, show Palin's unfavorables ranking higher than her favorables with majorities of voters, and pretty much every single poll shows majorities of voters saying that Palin is one of the reasons they're less likely to vote for McCain.
Yes, polls are inexact, but if they were really as easily manipulated and meaningless as you insist, it would be a lot easier for FOX News and the Drudge Report to find at least one poll that they could make say what they want about Palin, but none of them do, not even the ones that they're running and paying for.
Before the debates, Palin was just pretty and dumb, and people are dumb enough to vote for somebody like that, but after the debates, she's become an attack dog, and poll after poll - again, INCLUDING THE POLLS THAT RIGHT-BIASED "NEWS" AGENCIES HAVE FUNDED AND/OR CONDUCTED - have shown that voters are rejecting McCain precisely because of his negativity. So now, instead of just being pretty and dumb, Palin is pretty, dumb and mean, and again, even neocons can't come up with any "evidence," manufactured or otherwise, to contradict the evidence that "mean" is now a turn-off rather than a turn-on.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Oct 23, 2008 13:36:34 GMT -8
You're reaching, Jard. The fact of the matter is that pretty much every single poll, including those by pollsters with Republican leans, show Palin's unfavorables ranking higher than her favorables with majorities of voters, and pretty much every single poll shows majorities of voters saying that Palin is one of the reasons they're less likely to vote for McCain. Yes, polls are inexact, but if they were really as easily manipulated and meaningless as you insist, it would be a lot easier for FOX News and the Drudge Report to find at least one poll that they could make say what they want about Palin, but none of them do, not even the ones that they're running and paying for. Before the debates, Palin was just pretty and dumb, and people are dumb enough to vote for somebody like that, but after the debates, she's become an attack dog, and poll after poll - again, INCLUDING THE POLLS THAT RIGHT-BIASED "NEWS" AGENCIES HAVE FUNDED AND/OR CONDUCTED - have shown that voters are rejecting McCain precisely because of his negativity. So now, instead of just being pretty and dumb, Palin is pretty, dumb and mean, and again, even neocons can't come up with any "evidence," manufactured or otherwise, to contradict the evidence that "mean" is now a turn- off rather than a turn- on. I'm not reaching, I'm pointing something out that tends to get forgotten in the whole realm of statistics and polls. Namely, they tend to be aimed at areas with high population centers, which in general, tend to run Democrat and Liberal. You can ask 10 people in New York City who they'll vote for, ten people at random, and you will, statistically mind you, garner a democrat/liberal result over a conservative/republican result. Conversely, if you do it in small town America, say Fort Morgan, Colorado, Or Greeley Colorado. (With the exception on UNC Campus) and you will in general garner a completely opposite result. In some states, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, you will almost invariably get a Republican response prtty much anywhere you go, because the majority of those people hate everything that Democrats and Liberals stand for, even if they don't understand the issue. Smaller town centers usually tend to be more religiously affiliated. More secular. More insular, and, they believe, tighter knit communites with an us vs. them attitude when it comes to anything they don't generally agree with. They like playing sports, hunting, fishing, farming, tend to be less technologically inclined, because they were raised that way. Sure they might have a computer or two, but 9 times out of 10 it'll be a Dell PC they bought cheap. And they don't hold with a bunch of people telling them how to live, who they can like, dislike, tolerate, or be offended by, which is exactly what they percieve Democrats as doing most of the time. They don't care who exactly commited the terrorist acts of 9-11 because anyone living in that area of the world are all "a-rabs" anyway. And these people like Sarah Palin. They don't care that she knows nothing about the constitution of the united states. That she doesn't know that the VP is not in charge of the Senate. They like the fact that she's a hunter, and they like the fact that she's against taxes, and they like the fact that she's plain spoken and doesn't use polysyllabic words when she's talking to them. They like the fact that she's religious. They like the fact that she comes from Alaska. They like the fact that she was educated as a sports journalist and not a lawyer. I don't disagree with anything you say in your statement, Kirk, I just think that it, like the polls, is an attitude that isn't very realistic when it comes to a huge portion of the population of the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Oct 23, 2008 15:21:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 6, 2008 11:06:37 GMT -8
OK folks, put your numbers here. Electoral College: 370 - 168 I'm giving Obama Indiana and North Carolina, and one of Nebraska's 5, but I don't see MO breaking for him right now. Unless of course, McCain continues his self destruction following the third debate, in which case MO, GA, MS, MT, and even ND are in play. I am still not completely ruling out McCain being reduced to double digits in the electoral college. With North Carolina now officially called, we can see how I did here. OK, so I also gave him West Virginia in a fit of enthusiasm. I only missed that and NE-02, so I don't think I did too bad here with the final total 364-174 365-173. I'm counting Jeffords, technically an independent, as a Democrat here. Lieberman's on his own because no one likes him at this rate. With Oregon being called for the Dems in just the last few minutes, we can now place this at 56-40-1, with three races too close to call. Minnesota is going to a recount, with about 500 votes between the two candidates. Georgia is going to a runoff in December because third party candidates kept Chamblis below 50%. And I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people who were willing to vote for Sarah Palin for Governor would be willing to send a convicted felon back to the Senate just to be expelled--Alaska is currently too close to call, with the aforementioned felon Ted Stevens in a shrinking lead with ballots still being counted. In Minnesota, it's all going to come down to a lot of math being done by hand. No way to tell at this point. Georgia is tough to call-the full weight of both parties is going to be thrown here, with the Obama machine being seconded to the Dem (update: his entire Ohio operation is being sent to Georgia--every paid staff member), and the Republicans trying to stir up fear about unblocked Democratic power. Tossup, but probably leans Republican. Look for Obama to live in the state the last week before the runoff though, trying to drive up turnout in the urban areas. Alaska: Oi. Our only hope here is to win in the counting. If Stevens wins, he'll be kicked out of the Senate, which triggers a special election. Given that the disgust at Stevens corruption wasn't enough to get people to vote against him, a special election with a new "cleaner" candidate (Sarah Palin?) will go Republican for sure. No one's even positive where the outstanding ballots are from at this point, but there's some indication they're from Dem strongholds. Cross your fingers. Republicans are down 26 seats at this point, with 8 seats still outstanding. (Really, Kirk, what's Washington state thinking allowing ballots to be postmarked by election day? We won't be sure about Darcy's race for a week at least.) So I could still be proved right if most of those go Republican, but I hope I'm wrong. No final numbers yet, but it's looking like about 64%. Indiana, which turned out to be one of the important and hard fought states, only turned out 39%. I'm just assuming there were a lot of Republicans that couldn't bring themselves to vote for either side, but I'll take it. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 6, 2008 13:03:20 GMT -8
That voter turnout is actually quite respectable. Not up to our levels, but nothing to frown at.
|
|
