Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I still think the numbers are fudged.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Atman Donating Member (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).

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dbackjon Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (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?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shoopnyc Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. I agree as a Clinton supporter...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (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:
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=32289&cat=5

The polls were back and forth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. google "response bias". think simple..(nt_
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
budkin Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (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.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. WTF?
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.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BradBlog Donating Member (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...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. If that's the case
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. No.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (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.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-08-08 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. goes beyond that
check this out

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5529

Something stinks and it ain't something rotten up in Denmark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC