Zogby Has McCain Up 1

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:48 am

88 wrote:lib meltage

IN

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:50 am

on the lib boards

looking at where I am---- polls showing a McCain lead at this point do not surprise me as I'm thinking Obama people
may have worries that their minions will think the election is over and not show up on Tuesday after they have voted earlier.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:51 am

OHMYGAWD what are we gonna do now?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:55 am

I'll gladly chip in for sturdy shower rods for you and the rest of the Obama-zombies !

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:04 am

88 wrote:
Cling to your guns or religion?

The biggest problem for Obama in making that statement was that it was true.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:09 am

You and he say it like it's bad.

Religion is the first
Guns are the second

The first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Is clinging to government - the alternative Obama suggests - somehow better in your eyes ?

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:33 am

Obama is going to win going away.

I heard that on MSNBC....

They seem to always be fair and balanced so it must be true.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:05 am

Looks like Drudge is going to live up to his name and throw shit against the wall right through Tuesday.

I'm not shocked. Let's all kick back while Nate Silver drops science on you fools.

Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.

There are a couple of significant problems with this.

Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.

Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.

Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.

Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).

You dig?

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:35 am

Nate Silver

Who?

I'll go with Al Sharpton's version of skewed Poll results. He says all the young people only use cell phones so they are being left out of the mix. You see if you add those youngins in with us older folk who are rich enough to afford Caller ID and don't give a fuck about Polls or Bullshit Political Games , the numbers are bound to be skewed.

Roger_the_Shrubber · Post by **Roger_the_Shrubber** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:53 am

In 2004, "the polls" had Kerry leading by 6 points.

How'd that work out?

Q, West Coast Style · Post by **Q, West Coast Style** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:13 am

The way I see it national polls don't mean much unless they shows one guy consistently up double figures. What really matters:

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida.

McCain wins all 3, he's home free.

Obama wins at least 2 of 3, he's home free.

Obama wins 1 and Mcain wins 2, we could be looking at another late night with Obama needing to win 3 of Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:20 am

BSmack wrote:.......

I'm not shocked. Let's all kick back while Nate Silver drops science on you fools.

Matt Drudge is touting the results of a one-day sample in a Zogby poll, which apparently showed John McCain ahead by 1 point.

There are a couple of significant problems with this.

Firstly, there is a reason that pollsters include multiple days of interviewing in their tracking polls; a one-day sample is extremely volatile, and have very high margins for error.

Secondly, the Zogby polls have been particularly volatile, because he uses nonsensical party ID weightings, which mean that his weighting process involves making numbers doing naughty things that they usually don't like to do.

Thirdly, Zogby polls are generally a lagging rather than a leading indicator. This is because he splits his interviewing period over two days; most of the interviews that were conducted in this sample took place on Thursday night, with a few this afternoon. The reason this is significant is because lots of other pollsters were in the field on Thursday night, and most of them evidently showed good numbers for Obama, as he improved his standing in 6 of the 7 non-Zogby trackers.

Finally, there was no favorable news for McCain to drive these numbers. Polls don't move without a reason (or at least they don't move much).

Caaaaaaaaan youuuuuu dig it ?

Now that's an oldie but a goodie.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:35 am

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:In 2004, "the polls" had Kerry leading by 6 points.

How'd that work out?

Exactly.

Not that I'm endorsing the Dem candidate, but here's what's going to happen, on this board:

McCain wins:

"I can't believe it!

That's it, God has stepped in. Get to know HIM.

Told you so. Idiots.

Obama wins:

"I can't believe it!

That's it, God has stepped in. Get to know HIM, tards. We're done. It's absoluely, the END of the World! He's the anti-christ!

Have fun while Onoga runs this country into the ground. He's Black!

Btw, I'll be here for your comfort, just in case ...

Fucking idiots.

Let's get one thing clear, right here and now: The sun will still rise in the East and it will still set in the West, NO MATTER WHO IS ELECTED.

TV news will still warp your brain and you still won't pick up a fucking newspaper. You'll go on watching your wife, and occationally fuck her, when you or she is in the mood, and then, maybe, talk about politics.

Did you vote?

If you didn't, you can't say shit, about anything. EOFS.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:53 pm

I'm not worried. Obama will win, and set all to rights. Cheney will be placed in stocks, and Rumsfeld in the dunking stool. The full bush will come back into vogue for starlets to flash to paparazzi. jtr will lose 75 pounds and gain 100 iq points. English-americans will finally get their reparations, and we'll all learn how to breathe CO2 and eat carbon. Penn State will win back-to-back championships, and their female cheerleaders will adopt a no underwear policy. trev will go all Monen on us, and Monen will come back and have 14,000 posts.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:49 pm

Another dirty little secret in the "polls". 80% of those polled refused to answer, like me.

Can you say skewed, I knew you could.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:17 pm

Jerknic, for what reason would you "refuse" to answer a poll? To prove you're blessed with the maturity of a 3 year old child?

By refusing to take part in a poll, you're certainly not proving that it is somehow "skewed". "The poll's skewed because I refused to participate"...that doesn't work. If you participated and they somehow obscured your response, then that would be "skewed" - but you didn't respond.

No one believes that polls really mean shit, beyond what they set out to mean - a sampling of respondents.

I imagine that you'll fail to vote, as well...imagining somehow that your non-participation is actually some sort of participation.

What do you imagine happens as you hang up after "refusing" to participate? Do you picture the caller - or anyone else - somehow impressed by your principled stand against participation?

I'll help you on that score - you're just another halfwit who fails to utilize a participatory mechanism that folks in less advantaged nations and circumstances have gone to great lengths or even died to avail themselves of. Thousands of fellow Americans have gone to war to protect your liberties, and you can't be bothered to participate in the most fundamental of ways?

This senseless waste is a chest-thumping matter of pride for you? That's just...pathetic.

Rasputin · Post by **Rasputin** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:17 pm

Actually a lot of people who have jobs and lives are too busy to respond to pollsters. As opposed to fanatical leftists. When they start asking party affilliation of non-respondents, let me know. And quit taking polls in the middle of the day whan GOPers tend to be busy working and all of the Dems' favorite constituents (Social Security recipients, welfare moms, felons) are at home watching Jerry Springer.

TIA

General Peters · Post by **General Peters** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:02 pm

Tom In VA wrote:You and he say it like it's bad.

Religion is the first
Guns are the second

The first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Is clinging to government - the alternative Obama suggests - somehow better in your eyes ?

No, I think he prefers clinging to the bed posts while getting reamed up the ass by his boyfriend.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:26 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Jerknic, for what reason would you "refuse" to answer a poll? To prove you're blessed with the maturity of a 3 year old child?

By refusing to take part in a poll, you're certainly not proving that it is somehow "skewed". "The poll's skewed because I refused to participate"...that doesn't work. If you participated and they somehow obscured your response, then that would be "skewed" - but you didn't respond.

No one believes that polls really mean shit, beyond what they set out to mean - a sampling of respondents.

I imagine that you'll fail to vote, as well...imagining somehow that your non-participation is actually some sort of participation.

What do you imagine happens as you hang up after "refusing" to participate? Do you picture the caller - or anyone else - somehow impressed by your principled stand against participation?

I'll help you on that score - you're just another halfwit who fails to utilize a participatory mechanism that folks in less advantaged nations and circumstances have gone to great lengths or even died to avail themselves of. Thousands of fellow Americans have gone to war to protect your liberties, and you can't be bothered to participate in the most fundamental of ways?

This senseless waste is a chest-thumping matter of pride for you? That's just...pathetic.

You're a seriously deluded ankle biting, whinny lil bitch. It is reported that up to 80% of those contacted refuse to answer. I know, as a Ongga nob polisher, you have a difficult time not understanding why one doesn't scream NOGGA. Keep up with the the cheer leading you cool aid drinking dumb ass.

Sense when or where is written that the nosy cocksuckers at the polling institutions are part of the process. Personally, I think they're a hindrance to the election process.

BTW, I'll "participate" at the location of the voting booth. It is no ones business how I will/did vote. Apparently, there are more people like me then noisy little twats, like you.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:55 pm

Matt Drudge has something wrong with his head. I don't mean his thought process per se, but rather his actual head. It's dented and misshapen, as though he was handled with overly firm forceps during his delivery. Any ways, his "polls" have always been tedious twaddle, shameless right-wing crap designed to lead "undecided" sheep in a controlled fashion.

McBush and Brood Mare are going to get destroyed.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:22 pm

PSUFAN wrote:for what reason would you "refuse" to answer a poll?

I get bombarded on the phone by assholes trying to sell me shit I don't want. Half of them are thieving sneaky pricks pretending to represent my credit card company, telephone service, etc. I used to just hang up, now I pretend I'm interested, get their names and tell them this phone is on the "do not call" list. They backtrack FAST after that.

That technique slowed the calls down tremendously.

Next up are the recorded messages form the sherriff, the mayor, the senator, etc etc etc. Fuck those pricks as well. All they do is accuse their opponents of shit. I hang up as soon as I know what they are.

So when someone calls me to ask me my opinion on anything, fuck them, I don't like unsolicited calls.

Polls aren't worth shit anyway, so why bother to give them any information? It will only be misrepresented in some way.

Did you vote?

If you didn't, you can't say shit, about anything. EOFS.

Like hell I can't. I see no reason to vote for either one of these shit candidates, and a vote for anyone else is just the same as not voting, for all the impact it would have.

So you'll hear me bitching about whoever gets elected, because I don't think either one of them is competent enough to preserve, protect and defend, much less make decisions that will benefit the American people.

Until we either reform our government or get a viable independent 3rd party up on the rostrum, we're going to continue to be fucked up the ass by both of these incumbent corrupt parties.

Call me disenfranchised, call me whatever you want, but don't ever call me.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:00 am

too busy to respond to pollsters.

To me, that's a different matter. I understand not being able to take the time to respond. Refusing to respond out of some misguided spite - that's what I read above.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:08 am

Gallup has Obama ahead 52% to 42%.

So, which do you believe?

Rasputin · Post by **Rasputin** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:16 am

The one on Nov 4. Once they weed out all the ACORNs from the live voters actually eligible to vote. If the scumbag wants to try to buy the election with untracable contributions, whatever. But we can't let his buddies steal it outright.

Who does he think he is, JFK?

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:19 am

Since Zogby has been mentioned . . .

Let's not forget the prediction John Zogby made about a month or so ago: a popular vote that remains close, but an electoral vote that tilts decidedly toward one candidate.

That can mean only one thing: an Obama victory. By definition, a McCain victory would mean a razor-thin margin in the Electoral College.

And speaking of that . . .

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Obama 353, McCain 185.

That's the most favorable projection for McCain on that site in several days. And even then, McCain needs to flip Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada to win. With two days to go, and a considerable disadvantage in funds. OTOH, any one of those states gives the win to Obama, except Nevada, which gives him a tie in the Electoral College and sends the election to the House of Representatives, where Obama probably wins.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:56 pm

Have the standard electoral college rants ever been translated into Republican? Better get on that.

Rasputin · Post by **Rasputin** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:10 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Have the standard electoral college rants ever been translated into Republican? Better get on that.

Not nessecarry. Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:14 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I'll help you on that score - you're just another halfwit who fails to utilize a participatory mechanism that folks in less advantaged nations and circumstances have gone to great lengths or even died to avail themselves of. Thousands of fellow Americans have gone to war to protect your liberties, and you can't be bothered to participate in the most fundamental of ways?

What? As Dins might put it, the tard in you is strong on this day. When has anyone - in any country - fought or died for the right to participate in a useless poll? Were you just trying to play down to the level of your competition?

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:16 pm

Rasputin wrote: Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.

Like Art1 sec8?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:39 pm

I'm extending his refusal to participate in the poll into a refusal to vote. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my post yesterday. If he votes, then obviously my rant is not valid.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:40 pm

Rasputin wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Have the standard electoral college rants ever been translated into Republican? Better get on that.
Not nessecarry. Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment thanks you for that belly laugh.

Rasputin · Post by **Rasputin** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:06 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Rasputin wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Have the standard electoral college rants ever been translated into Republican? Better get on that.
Not nessecarry. Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment thanks you for that belly laugh.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:36 pm

Mace wrote:These dumbass polls are no more credible than the pre-season football rankings......fodder for conversation. The only meaningful poll will be the one conducted on Nov. 4, so vote early and often.

Mace

I'm with you on that. Has anyone here ever been a part of these polls? To me, it's a strong assumption that taking a sample of the population truly speaks for the rest of the group. Until they can ask everyone who they would choose...they need to keep this crap quiet.

PSUFAN wrote:Have the standard electoral college rants ever been translated into Republican? Better get on that.

Here's my two cents on the electoral system...

I find it funny they even straw polls about the popular vote when the national popular vote doesn't even elect the President anyways. I find the electoral system actually limit the power of everyone's vote. You can win a big state like Texas or California by a single vote and get all their electoral votes but you can clean up in small states and get just a few electoral votes and it doesn't truly show the story of the national view of the election.

I think the electoral system also allows the candidates to be very selective and I'd even say lazy as far as campaigning in "showdown or swing states". This has nothing to do with the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and he was the guy I voted for...I've felt this way long before I could even vote. If I was a republican in Michigan and this state has pretty much been given to Obama...why should I even bother to show up to the polls on Tuesday? You have to give everyone a reason to show up...every vote should count and in the electoral system, they don't.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:21 pm

Rasputin wrote:Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.

:?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:48 pm

Shoalzie wrote: If I was a republican in Michigan and this state has pretty much been given to Obama...why should I even bother to show up to the polls on Tuesday? You have to give everyone a reason to show up...every vote should count and in the electoral system, they don't.

In case you hadn't noticed, there several other items on the ballot other than the Presidential election.

Some of them are even important.

Kierland · Post by **Kierland** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:12 pm

Rasputin wrote: Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

So you understand Art1sec8?
Enlighten us.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:13 pm

Rasputin wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
Rasputin wrote:
Not nessecarry. Republicans actually believe in the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment thanks you for that belly laugh.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

I understand " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" perfectly well. It's your party catering to the thumpers that don't understand that amendment.

Rasputin · Post by **Rasputin** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:25 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:I understand " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" perfectly well.

And of course that isn't happening anywhere except the fever swamp of the Left's groupmind.

At least not in states controlled by the GOP.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:28 pm

Rasputin wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:I understand " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" perfectly well.
And of course that isn't happening anywhere except the fever swamp of the Left's groupmind.

James Madison would have a bone to pick with you.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:30 pm

Mikey wrote:
Shoalzie wrote: If I was a republican in Michigan and this state has pretty much been given to Obama...why should I even bother to show up to the polls on Tuesday? You have to give everyone a reason to show up...every vote should count and in the electoral system, they don't.
In case you hadn't noticed, there several other items on the ballot other than the Presidential election.

Some of them are even important.

I know that but I'm just saying the republicans up here are powerless since McCain pulled his train out of here and pretty much gave Michigan to Barry and Joe.