OT: No McCain convention bounce???

[conversationpc]

From RealClearPolitics.com

RCP Average 08/29 - 09/07 -- 46.7 45.5 McCain +1.2
USA Today/Gallup 09/05 - 09/07 LV 54 44 McCain +10
Rasmussen Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 3000 LV 48 47 McCain +1
Gallup Tracking 09/04 - 09/06 2765 RV48 45 McCain +3
Hotline/FD 09/02 - 09/04 916 RV 40 46 Obama +6
CBS News 09/01 - 09/03 734 RV 42 42 Tie
CNN 08/29 - 08/31 927 RV 48 49 Obama +1

Wasn't someone here bragging that McCain not only got no bounce but was behind by an average of 8 points or something like that?

[Tito]

7 Wishes. Sounds like he was wishing.

[Barb]

While it’s true Obama’s campaign has invested little energy in analyzing national polls, it has closely tracked two national numbers: is Obama ahead of McCain on the econmoy and is he an agent of “change.”

Monday’s USA Today poll shows McCain has closed the week-before advantage on the economy from 19 points in Obama’s favor to just 3 points now.

Three Democrats contacted by FOX News called this a seriously negative development, one they believe the Obama camp must reverse in the coming week.

The Obama camp had no comment on the junior senator from Illinois’ sudden loss of momentum on economic matters and what, if any, changes in strategy it might trigger.

The polls favoring Obama on the economy were highly touted by the campaign previously. Now all of a sudden, these numbers don't matter.

[strangegrey]

It's been proven time and time again, that these polls are manipulated, massaged and/or flat out doctored to generate a desirable result.

When polling for the Kerry/Bush election had Kerry winning the election in a landslide right up until the afternoon of the election....but then all of a sudden, the truth came out and Bush whomped Kerry...it was obvious what the pollsters were doing. They were asking loaded/canned questions to generate a desirable result.

This is no different. Anyone here that has been a student of statistical analysis has to be scratching his or her head at the hugely diverse results these different 'polls' are generating. How on earth does USA Today have McCain up 10 points but Hotline up 6 points? Aren't they asking the same questions!?!?!?!?!

When you take a statistical sample, there's a scientific method in order to generate a certain confidence level. Are these different pollsters using widely different methods or are they just asking widely different questions!?!?!

It's sad. I wouldn't be shocked to turn on election coverage the night of the elections to see all of the networks going "I don't know what's happening, we had Obama winning this thing by a landslide...now look at the results?"

They just don't learn....same shit, different election....

[conversationpc]

It's been proven time and time again, that these polls are manipulated, massaged and/or flat out doctored to generate a desirable result.

When polling for the Kerry/Bush election had Kerry winning the election in a landslide right up until the afternoon of the election....but then all of a sudden, the truth came out and Bush whomped Kerry...it was obvious what the pollsters were doing. They were asking loaded/canned questions to generate a desirable result.

This is no different. Anyone here that has been a student of statistical analysis has to be scratching his or her head at the hugely diverse results these different 'polls' are generating. How on earth does USA Today have McCain up 10 points but Hotline up 6 points? Aren't they asking the same questions!?!?!?!?!

When you take a statistical sample, there's a scientific method in order to generate a certain confidence level. Are these different pollsters using widely different methods or are they just asking widely different questions!?!?!

It's sad. I wouldn't be shocked to turn on election coverage the night of the elections to see all of the networks going "I don't know what's happening, we had Obama winning this thing by a landslide...now look at the results?"

They just don't learn....same shit, different election....

I don't put a lot of stock in the polls, either. I really only brought this up because someone was bragging about how McCain was still down in the polls and the Palin selection/speech didn't do anything. I'm really surprised that either side continues to use these numbers to show anything since they are so fickle.

Now, as to why the numbers are so fickle, I don't completely agree with you that they are purposely manipulated. That's a whole other story.

[Ehwmatt]

I'm for McCain/Palin and any news like this is great, but yeah - I don't put too much stock into the polls either. It's nice to see and all, but you just can't live and die by them as predictors. So, cool news, but I hope McCain and Palin can keep it up.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

All these pollsters are wasting their time can they get real jobs -

It will all come down to a handful of people in Michigan and Ohio this year. Thats the way it always was, and they way its gonna be until election day.

[stevew2]

All these pollsters are wasting their time can they get real jobs -

It will all come down to a handful of people in Michigan and Ohio this year. Thats the way it always was, and they way its gonna be until election day.

MG girl will cast the deciding vote

[brywool]

I don't put a lot of stock in the polls.

That's what she said!

[Enigma869]

I agree with Frank that these polls are meaningless. Obama was WAY ahead (by double digits) in the NH Primary, and Hillary ended up winning NH in a landslide! They really mean nothing. Having said that, I just don't see Obama winning this election. I believe the puppet, Palin is enough to get McCain the female vote, and that vote will decide this election, in my opinion.


John from Boston

[Barb]

I agree with Frank that these polls are meaningless. Obama was WAY ahead (by double digits) in the NH Primary, and Hillary ended up winning NH in a landslide! They really mean nothing. Having said that, I just don't see Obama winning this election. I believe the puppet, Palin is enough to get McCain the female vote, and that vote will decide this election, in my opinion.


John from Boston

Is there a reason you are demeaning this woman by calling her a puppet? Do you think she got to become the governor of Alaska because she is stupid or lacks ambition? Or are you just mad because she is such a strong candidate?

[Enigma869]

Is there a reason you are demeaning this woman by calling her a puppet?

Yes...it's because I beleive that she is a puppet. If she ever actually gives a speech and says anything different or of substance, my opinion might change!

Do you think she got to become the governor of Alaska because she is stupid or lacks ambition?

I never claimed she was stupid or lacked ambition. I know nothing about the woman, and I'm quite sure that you probably knew very little about her two weeks ago, so please don't patronize me with her biography!

Or are you just mad because she is such a strong candidate?

I can assure you that I'm not "mad", at all. I think all politicians are blowhards, and she's in that same category. Fuck Palin...Fuck McCain...Fuck Obama...and Fuck Biden! Seeing these candidates makes me realize just how much trouble this country is in. It makes me yearn for a Jimmy Carer/Gerald Ford election


John from Boston

[Barb]

Is there a reason you are demeaning this woman by calling her a puppet?

Yes...it's because I beleive that she is a puppet. If she ever actually gives a speech and says anything different or of substance, my opinion might change!

Do you think she got to become the governor of Alaska because she is stupid or lacks ambition?

I never claimed she was stupid or lacked ambition. I know nothing about the woman, and I'm quite sure that you probably knew very little about her two weeks ago, so please don't patronize me with her biography!

Or are you just mad because she is such a strong candidate?

I can assure you that I'm not "mad", at all. I think all politicians are blowhards, and she's in that same category. Fuck Palin...Fuck McCain...Fuck Obama...and Fuck Biden! Seeing these candidates makes me realize just how much trouble this country is in. It makes me yearn for a Jimmy Carer/Gerald Ford election


John from Boston

I've known about her since June when she was on the Glenn Beck program. Glenn was impressed by her eloquent comments about the blessing of their newborn with Down's and wanted to talk to her. I never thought McCain would pick her, but glad he did.

As far as your last comment, if you're pining for Jimmy Carter .... eesh! I kind of agree with you on some level, though. There's no way I would have considered voting for McCain prior to adding Palin to the ticket. I think maybe she might help get some things done.

[strangegrey]

Now, as to why the numbers are so fickle, I don't completely agree with you that they are purposely manipulated. That's a whole other story.

While there are other reasons that might come into play, I really feel that the polsters tend to ask loaded questions to massage a result. It's common-place in politics. It was exposed back during the Kerry run for president in 2004. The democrat party was hoping to show such a strong showing in the polls, prior to the election, that republicans would stay home. It back fired on them.

If you look at most of the recent elections, you will see actual results of elections always seem to be a few points off from the polls, in favor of republican candidates. It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.

[RossValoryRocks]

Now, as to why the numbers are so fickle, I don't completely agree with you that they are purposely manipulated. That's a whole other story.

While there are other reasons that might come into play, I really feel that the polsters tend to ask loaded questions to massage a result. It's common-place in politics. It was exposed back during the Kerry run for president in 2004. The democrat party was hoping to show such a strong showing in the polls, prior to the election, that republicans would stay home. It back fired on them.

If you look at most of the recent elections, you will see actual results of elections always seem to be a few points off from the polls, in favor of republican candidates. It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.

But Rasmussen is far from a Democratic operative, while CBS is...so how do you explain the relative sameness (within margin of error) of all these polls?

[strangegrey]

But Rasmussen is far from a Democratic operative, while CBS is...so how do you explain the relative sameness (within margin of error) of all these polls?

Im not saying they're all doing it. Perhaps Rasmussen and CBS are *not* doing anything wrong with their polling and they're both asking the right questions.

The point is that some of the polling data is so far outside of what one would consider the margin of error for this sorta thing, that someone's gotta be taking poor samples or asking skewed questions....

[RossValoryRocks]

But Rasmussen is far from a Democratic operative, while CBS is...so how do you explain the relative sameness (within margin of error) of all these polls?

Im not saying they're all doing it. Perhaps Rasmussen and CBS are *not* doing anything wrong with their polling and they're both asking the right questions.

The point is that some of the polling data is so far outside of what one would consider the margin of error for this sorta thing, that someone's gotta be taking poor samples or asking skewed questions....

I actually read somewhere that doing those kinds of leading polls is illegal....hmmm...time to do some research!

[CatEyes]

But Rasmussen is far from a Democratic operative, while CBS is...so how do you explain the relative sameness (within margin of error) of all these polls?

Im not saying they're all doing it. Perhaps Rasmussen and CBS are *not* doing anything wrong with their polling and they're both asking the right questions.

The point is that some of the polling data is so far outside of what one would consider the margin of error for this sorta thing, that someone's gotta be taking poor samples or asking skewed questions....

like "Are you still beating your wife?"

[Enigma869]

As far as your last comment, if you're pining for Jimmy Carter .... eesh!

Just so I'm clear, my Carter comment was made in jest, and not meant to be taken seriously. My larger point was that if these 4 clowns are the best we can do in American politics, we're in trouble! I think Carter was the second worst president in my lifetime. The only reason I don't rank him the worst president of my lifetime is because of the moron currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! For what it's worth, I also think Carter is the best ex-president we've had, because of his endless humanitarian efforts. I'm not sure what the hell W. is going to do when his ass finally gets put out to pasture. Most ex-presidents head out onto the speaking tours. This poor fuck can't put a second grade sentence together, so I'm not sure there are going to be corporations lining up to have Mr. "Not Hooked On Phonics", inspire anyone. Sadly, I think McCain is only a slightly better speaker (which is FRIGHTENING) than our current buffoon


John from Boston

[strangegrey]

like "Are you still beating your wife?"

I'm not quite sure how a pollster is supposed to extrapolate a pick for president with a question like that!?

[separate_wayz]

But Rasmussen is far from a Democratic operative, while CBS is...so how do you explain the relative sameness (within margin of error) of all these polls?

Im not saying they're all doing it. Perhaps Rasmussen and CBS are *not* doing anything wrong with their polling and they're both asking the right questions.

The point is that some of the polling data is so far outside of what one would consider the margin of error for this sorta thing, that someone's gotta be taking poor samples or asking skewed questions....

For the most part, I think pollsters with household names (and/or the ones affiliated with the major media) try to do the best job they can. Some have a better track record of predicting electoral outcomes (Gallup), some don't (Zogby). The differences in outcomes can often be easily explained by assumptions they use.

For example, does the pollster use "registered voters" as the population sampled, or "likely voters"? Using the latter makes more sense, because a lot of registered voters don't vote. But how will you determine who is a "likely voter"? This is where sampling error is injected into the process. Often a lot of assumptions have to be made here about the predicted electoral turnout on election day.

Here's another (big) problem. In the past, pollsters used to call people at home, using easily available telephone directories. Stratified sampling and cross-tabulations (i.e., Democrats vs. Republicans, men vs. women, whites vs. non-whites) could be easily planned in advance, using these directories. But now, people often don't have a home phone -- they only have a cell phone, and those directories are far more difficult to compile or get a hold of. Also, with cheap voicemail for home phones and cell phones, it's easier for people to screen their calls. Are you to assume, as a pollster making 100 calls, that the 49 people you reached by phone are statistically similar to the 51 people who screened your call or let it roll into voicemail? There could be a lot riding on your answer to this question ......

Another point. You win the presidency by winning electoral votes, which means winning individual states. A close poll (say, 48% to 46%) may not really predict that the candidate with the higher vote totals wins. Let's say Obama is ahead 48% to McCain with 46%. But let's also say that in 3 large states (California, New York and Illinois), Obama is far ahead in the state polls (say, 70% to 24%). Let's also assume that McCain has leads in states, but no leads this large (or perhaps, no leads among states with that many electoral votes in total). Because Obama has built (in this hypothetical example) large leads in states that he was going to win anyway, his national poll results are distorted and might not reflect an actual electoral victory. Obama in this example could lose a close electoral vote, even if the national poll accurately reflects public opinion on the eve of election day. The point is: look at how the state polls too. That's where the ground action is ......

In my opinion, based on the last few elections, the two organizations that seemed to have good predictive ability in their national polls are (1) Gallup and (2) Rasmussen. I add them together and divide by two.

[Don]

I deal with stats everyday so I want to chime in. The only way to give these polls validity is by using at minimum a three week trend and also having uniform questions amongst the pollsters. Even then, the accuracy is still questionable depending on who is presenting it.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

[Monker]

I really only brought this up because someone was bragging about how McCain was still down in the polls and the Palin selection/speech didn't do anything.

That was reported by CNN last week. How do these polls prove the above? Some of the dates end BEFORE the convention even started. Some of them end today, well after Palin's speech. NONE of them end the day after. There is no proof that it happened...Even CNN said the poll they were quoting from ended the day before her speech....and there is no proof against it.

The polls are all mixed....with up to 10percent still undecided. Seems to me that NOBODY came out of the convention weeks with any real advantage.

Unless your name is Ross Perot, VP's really do not have much affect on elections. Dukakis made a great pick with Benson...and daddy Bush made a crappy pick with Quayle....and we all know that turned out. Palin was not a 'bad' pick...and neither was Biden. That is all that matters. The debate between the top of the ticket is what will decide the election...and I think it will be a lot closer then most people want to beleive.

[Rick]

I really only brought this up because someone was bragging about how McCain was still down in the polls and the Palin selection/speech didn't do anything.

That was reported by CNN last week. How do these polls prove the above? Some of the dates end BEFORE the convention even started. Some of them end today, well after Palin's speech. NONE of them end the day after. There is no proof that it happened...Even CNN said the poll they were quoting from ended the day before her speech....and there is no proof against it.

The polls are all mixed....with up to 10percent still undecided. Seems to me that NOBODY came out of the convention weeks with any real advantage.

Unless your name is Ross Perot, VP's really do not have much affect on elections. Dukakis made a great pick with Benson...and daddy Bush made a crappy pick with Quayle....and we all know that turned out. Palin was not a 'bad' pick...and neither was Biden. That is all that matters. The debate between the top of the ticket is what will decide the election...and I think it will be a lot closer then most people want to beleive.

Hey, you say potato, I say potatoe.



My spell check even caught it.

[S2M]

These polls are created to give the media something to report on. Horserace journalism. Rather than reporting on the issues, it is easier to be objective simply by discussing who seems to be polling better on a given day.

As for McCain getting a bounce -- that is what is supposed to happen after the convention. It would be a bigger story if he didn't get a bounce.


National polling doesn't take the Electoral College into account. The presidential election is not a popular election.
There are really only two polls that count. The one on November 4, and then the one when the Electoral College meets.

When Rudy Guiliani was shouting at the convention that the "people" were going to decide this election -- I was laughing -- because the popular vote doesn't decide the election, the Electoral College decides the election -- as long as the House of Representatives or the Supreme Court don't get involved.

[conversationpc]

That was reported by CNN last week. How do these polls prove the above? Some of the dates end BEFORE the convention even started. Some of them end today, well after Palin's speech. NONE of them end the day after. There is no proof that it happened...Even CNN said the poll they were quoting from ended the day before her speech....and there is no proof against it.

If you really believe this, you truly have the intellect of an earthworm. It is a "bounce". The pollsters are saying but I guess they don't know anything about polling, huh? I guess it's just coincidence that the polls moved in favor of McCain/Palin? Get real.

We all know you just like to argue for the sake of arguing but you should at least make an attempt to argue about something that you actually know about.

[Monker]

If you really believe this, you truly have the intellect of an earthworm. It is a "bounce". The pollsters are saying but I guess they don't know anything about polling, huh? I guess it's just coincidence that the polls moved in favor of McCain/Palin? Get real.

A bounce from PALIN and HER speach. THAT can not be proved one way or the other. THAT is what I am saying. If there is a bounce, and I am not arguing that there is or isn't, you can not say the credit should be given to Palin. If you can, show it to me in the polls above.

[journeypower]

That was reported by CNN last week. How do these polls prove the above? Some of the dates end BEFORE the convention even started. Some of them end today, well after Palin's speech. NONE of them end the day after. There is no proof that it happened...Even CNN said the poll they were quoting from ended the day before her speech....and there is no proof against it.

If you really believe this, you truly have the intellect of an earthworm. It is a "bounce". The pollsters are saying but I guess they don't know anything about polling, huh? I guess it's just coincidence that the polls moved in favor of McCain/Palin? Get real.

We all know you just like to argue for the sake of arguing but you should at least make an attempt to argue about something that you actually know about.

[7 Wishes]

The choice of Palin will haunt McCain in the end - there was no point in pandering to conservatives who were already going to vote for the Republican ticket regardless. The Right is counting on women to be stupid and blindly vote for someone because of her gender, even though her views conflict with the majority of theirs. Well, they counted wrong. Palin didn't say ANYTHING in her speech - mostly she just rehashed 9/11 and typical acrimonious time-proven Republican talking points. She didn't give ONE NEW IDEA and actually LIED about Obama's positions. Fearmongering and hatemongering, as usual. SOOOO predictable from the Right. Well, America won't be stupid enough to fall for it again.

[csiako]

The choice of Palin will haunt McCain in the end - there was no point in pandering to conservatives who were already going to vote for the Republican ticket regardless. The Right is counting on women to be stupid and blindly vote for someone because of her gender, even though her views conflict with the majority of theirs. Well, they counted wrong. Palin didn't say ANYTHING in her speech - mostly she just rehashed 9/11 and typical acrimonious time-proven Republican talking points. She didn't give ONE NEW IDEA and actually LIED about Obama's positions. Fearmongering and hatemongering, as usual. SOOOO predictable from the Right. Well, America won't be stupid enough to fall for it again.

lol the polls will disagree with you. heck even democrats say Palin is an aweome choice