Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:38 PM
Original message |
I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I still think the numbers are fudged. |
|
It doesn't make sense that the polling could be so far off. REMEMBER, polling was never this inaccurate until BushCo in 2000; that's when polls "suddenly" became worthless. This is the reason why I question Hillary's "victory" tonight.
They WANT us to doubt the polls. They want us to distrust them. As long as we believe exit polls and voter surveys are notoriously inaccurate (which they aren't), then we won't question miraculous victories like Hillary's (and W's).
.
|
dbackjon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |
1. You are forgetting the 17% undecided factor. |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The media or the Clinton machinery played us for suckers. They didn't mention the 17% undecided |
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. There has ALWAYS been an "undecided" factor. Why is it so different now? |
|
Seriously...nothing is new this year. Except the apparatus. Which isn't really "new," just another morphing of the corporate-media consortium hand-selected by BushCo deputies to report the trends. It's the same as it's been since forever, there are always "undecideds" and the polling can (and used to) take them into account.
Why is everything so different this year?
.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
15. because I didn't pay attention. 17% is HUGE though. I should have payed more attention /nt |
shoopnyc
(500 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I agree as a Clinton supporter... |
NYC Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
4. But a few days before, Hillary was ahead: |
Marrah_G
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It actually does make sense |
|
Alot of Democrats who don't normally vote in primaries came out to vote. These people are NOT included in the polls. Therefore the Democrats in NH threw a wrench in the polling process by coming out to vote in massive numbers.
|
Pavulon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |
6. google "response bias". think simple..(nt_ |
budkin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The exit polls show what happened |
|
It was women voting overwhelmingly for Clinton and independents going for McCain.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Exit polls are always wrong, remember? |
|
Choose your meme and stick with one, will you!
Remember, up until BushCo 2000, exit polls were dead-nuts accurate. Always. But BushCo told us not to rely on them, that they're actually notoriously bad indicators. So which is it? Are the polls accurate, or off-kilter as BushCo claims? Pick one. Someone is lying to us either way.
.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
18. Exit polls are accurate. What is your problem? |
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
What the hell do you mean "what is my problem?" Exit polls ARE accurate. I agree with your sub line. What the fuck is YOUR problem. Explain yourself, please. Are exit polls only accurate in Democratic races where your guy (or girl) wins? Seems to be what you're saying. If exit polls are generally accurate, do you buy into BushCo's thesis that they were ALL wrong in 2000? Just askin. Cuz I don't know wtf your point is.
.
|
BradBlog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-10-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
23. Uh, you may want to check you facts... |
OzarkDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
you have to ask yourself "what did either Clinton or Obama do about election fraud?" They both consistently ignored or outright dismissed any talk of vote rigging or election fraud.
John Edwards, Kucinich and others had the guts to look into it and speak out and call for investigations. If election fraud was used to hurt either of our Dem front runners, I can only say they deserve it. Let this be a lesson to them.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Are you confusing pre-vote polling with exit polling? |
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
Ioo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:48 PM
Response to Original message |
13. If I recall Gore was the winner and so was Kerry - Polls have always lied to us - NT |
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Hmmm...so you point to two Bush-era polls to state your case. |
|
Bad choice. Look at the historical data BEFORE BushCo changed the rules.
.
|
Raiden
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I knew Obama lost when the exit polling revealed that |
|
women went for Hillary and that women made up the majority of NH primary voters. That was what won it for Obama in Iowa.
She pulled off an amazing victory.
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message |
17. The polls are not inaccurate ... |
|
But you have to look at the numbers behind the polls to interpret them properly.
|
nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message |
|
check this out http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5529Something stinks and it ain't something rotten up in Denmark
|
Raine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |
21. I'm an Edward supporter ... something really smells |
|
bad here. I don't see how things could change like that without some kind of "interference" somewhere.
|
in_cog_ni_to
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-08-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Now we know why Congress refused to do anything about the evoting machine issue. |
|
2 Washington insiders will be our nominees....McCain/Clinton.... I GUARANTEE IT.
BOTH parties are using them to steal elections. Can there be any doubt now? How much SHIT are we going to accept?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |