Lies, damn lies and presidential polls

[Archangel M]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl110

But just as journalists nationwide were starting to write their landslide stories, in comes this week's AP poll ... with McCain behind by just one point. That might as well be a tie. If you factor in the margin of error, then McCain could actually be ahead.

If the AP poll was the 1 in a McCain 1-2 punch, then in came the IBD/TIPP Poll with it's left hook. It too had McCain down by 1, with the momentum among key voting blocks going to the Republican. This from the polling firm who says they were the "Most Accurate Pollster" of the 2004 election.

Weird thing is, these polls came out at the same time other major polls showed Obama with a double-digit lead.

So, what gives?

What gives is... if you think these polling agencies dont have a political slant you are a sucker.

I think there is a "make it look like its a landslide and more swing voters will vote for the winning horse" thing going on here. But thats just me.

 

[bluemtn]

I was going to post something on a similar note, but you beat me to it. You better believe that there's some sort of "slant" going on! Look at the polling in my state, which had started it's early polling just a few days/ last week ago. Apparently, a lot of the state's citizens (1,000 to be exact) are pretty upset. They went to vote for one candidate, and since it was a touch screen in use, it somehow "messed up" and indicated that the other was selected. Coincidence?

 

[Twin Fist]

if you actually LOOK at who they polled, they are asking MORE democrats than republicans, by, on average 10-25%

Hannity exposed this liek 3 weeks ago

 

[celtic_crippler]

Polls are polls.....not nearly accurate enough to determine the winner.

Both parties lie....which in and of itself is reason not to vote for them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I trust our poll more than I do anyone elses.

 

[Sukerkin]

They went to vote for one candidate, and since it was a touch screen in use, it somehow "messed up" and indicated that the other was selected. Coincidence?

Good lord. There appears to be no end to the 'fixing' of elections in your supposedly free country.

It was done twice with the Republicans (apologies John, I know you don't think so but I'm pretty convinced) and now 'they' are working on getting the Democrats in to quell the masses :huge thumbs down:.

I've said it before but my opinion is that you want neither of the two candidates in charge. Both of them are serving interests that do not have the good of you or your country at heart.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Amerika stopped being free years ago. Look at the recent series of ballot access issues.

 

[Archangel M]

Three times in American history the Electoral College has elected a president who did not win the popular vote.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams, son of President John Adams, became president despite receiving fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, who finished first but failed to win a majority of either vote. Adams, after striking a deal with the third-place candidate, was elected president by Congress as required by the Constitution when no candidate wins an electoral vote majority. In 1828, Jackson defeated Adams handily.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by 247,000 votes, but won the Electoral College by one vote, 185 to 184. Hayes, who served one term, was derided by critics as "His Fraudulency" and "Rutherfraud." (nothing is "new" as I keep saying)

In 1888, President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 votes but lost the Electoral College vote 233-168 to Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland ousted Harrison from office, winning both the popular and electoral votes by a wide margin.

And George Bush

I dont think its right, wrong or stealing as many suggest, just a loophole in out system that has been around since its birth. Every once and a while it happens, but most of the time the popular vote mirrors the electoral.

 

[Twin Fist]

It was done twice with the Republicans (apologies John, I know you don't think so but I'm pretty convinced) and now 'they' are working on getting the Democrats in to quell the masses :huge thumbs down:.

Quite alright partner. Even When I disagree with you, i KNOW you dont hold opinions based on knee jerk partisan reasons

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Polls in general are only as good as the demographics they are working with.

Typically you take a number of polls and then average them out and you tend to get something that mirrors what happens in an election. (though not always)

Based on the economy and where we are as a country right not in the end I feel pretty confident that if you average them out they might be pretty close.

 

[terryl965]

Polls are determined by the ones taing them, we have no way of actually knowing the truth anout anything.

 

[grydth]

I trust our poll more than I do anyone elses.

Three out of five voters surveyed agreed with you!