Polls don't lie

[240 is Back]

...

You add up all the undercideds, and Mccain is still losing by 50+.

What can Mccain do to steal away a few states?

[24KT]

...

You add up all the undercideds, and Mccain is still losing by 50+.

What can Mccain do to steal away a few states?

Not if it's Diebold doing the adding. 

[240 is Back]

Not if it's Diebold doing the adding. 

diebold can only cheat 1 to 1.5% and get away with it.

margins that close worked in 00 and 04.

[headhuntersix]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national registered voters' presidential election preferences finds Barack Obama with a slight advantage over John McCain, 45% to 43%.

[240 is Back]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national registered voters' presidential election preferences finds Barack Obama with a slight advantage over John McCain, 45% to 43%.

Nationwide polls don't mean much.   Right now, Obama leads 296 to 172 electoral votes (polled by states), with 69 still undecided.  Even if Mccain won ALL the close states, he'd still lose the overall by 50 electoral votes.

Mathematically, Mccain needs a miracle to win this. 


BTW - Some news polls exclude barr and nader, who consistetly take away 7% from mccain.  Mccain drops from 44 to 38% when those two men are available options. 


Ask Al Gore what nationwide popular vote totals mean

[Dos Equis]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national registered voters' presidential election preferences finds Barack Obama with a slight advantage over John McCain, 45% to 43%.

It will likely remain this close until election day.  I don't see either one winning by a large margin. 

[240 is Back]

It will likely remain this close until election day.  I don't see either one winning by a large margin. 

State-by-state, it isn't even close.   because Mccain is winning by 20 and 30 points in states like Utah, Idaho, and winning in high population states.

Look at the state by states.

[headhuntersix]

I'm waiting for the debates.....Obama should be ahead by alot and he isn't. Perople are weary of his lack of substance.


I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world,” Obama said from his perch next to the Victory Column in Berlin, from which he could see throngs of spectators.

I refuse to allow this shitbag to speak for me abroad. Are u a  world citizen. Not me I'm a  American, fuck him.

[Dos Equis]

I agree.  The numbers will fluctuate after the debates and after the conventions.  It's rather silly to say the race is a slam dunk either way at this point. 

[a_joker10]

CNN tells a different story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
Obama 221
McCain  189
Tossup 128

[240 is Back]

CNN tells a different story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
Obama 221
McCain  189
Tossup 128

lol were you just watchign Anderson Cooper too? 

[tonymctones]

"POLLS DONT LIE" LOL spoken like a true moron who has no idea of research methodology...

240 THE KING OF POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!

[240 is Back]

"POLLS DONT LIE" LOL spoken like a true moron who has no idea of research methodology...

240 THE KING OF POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!

You sound like a dick.

[tonymctones]

You sound like a dick.

ehh i guess i can be, more so a person who doesnt like it when ppl speak out their ass.

[240 is Back]

ehh i guess i can be, more so a person who doesnt like it when ppl speak out their ass.

"The CNN Electoral Map is based on analysis from the CNN Political Unit "

This means that they create the results based upon their own analysis.  Since CNN is a cable news show, would it benefit them to show the findings as the highly scientific pollster.com does?  You know, not all that close?  Or would be benefit CNN (higher ratings) to have the race be super-close?

You know the NBA prefers it when Finals games are close at the end.  Blowouts don't make money.


Pollster.com uses scientific data from a variety of polls and breaks down exactly why each state is doing what it's doing.   CNN crates their own numbers which - surprise! - show it so close that you should watch CNN tomorrow to learn more!


Show me some highly scientific polling that says it's close in many states.  Don't show me something from cable news, who makes more money from close elections than from blowouts.

[tonymctones]

"The CNN Electoral Map is based on analysis from the CNN Political Unit "

This means that they create the results based upon their own analysis.  Since CNN is a cable news show, would it benefit them to show the findings as the highly scientific pollster.com does?  You know, not all that close?  Or would be benefit CNN (higher ratings) to have the race be super-close?

You know the NBA prefers it when Finals games are close at the end.  Blowouts don't make money.


Pollster.com uses scientific data from a variety of polls and breaks down exactly why each state is doing what it's doing.   CNN crates their own numbers which - surprise! - show it so close that you should watch CNN tomorrow to learn more!


Show me some highly scientific polling that says it's close in many states.  Don't show me something from cable news, who makes more money from close elections than from blowouts.

wasnt speaking specifically on this although ive seen poles where mccain is leading, seen them where obama has a big lead and where obama has a slight lead...I was speaking on how you constantly rely on polls and statistics...My question to you is do you know exactly how they got this information for the polls? and more specifically do you know how unreliable polls and statistics can be?

[240 is Back]

wasnt speaking specifically on this although ive seen poles where mccain is leading, seen them where obama has a big lead and where obama has a slight lead...I was speaking on how you constantly rely on polls and statistics...My question to you is do you know exactly how they got these information for the polls? and more specifically do you know how unreliable polls and statistics can be?

can you shot me these polls where you see mccain leading in a state-by-state?  would be the first i've head of them.

Of course polls are unreliable.  But in state by state, can they ALL be unreliable in one direction (obamas)?  ESPECIALLY when that one direction is also getting all the money, all the media coverage, all the campaign volunteers, all the world leader love...

Obama isn't just winning in polls.  He's winning in many other categories too.

[tonymctones]

can you shot me these polls where you see mccain leading in a state-by-state?  would be the first i've head of them.

Of course polls are unreliable.  But in state by state, can they ALL be unreliable in one direction (obamas)?  ESPECIALLY when that one direction is also getting all the money, all the media coverage, all the campaign volunteers, all the world leader love...

Obama isn't just winning in polls.  He's winning in many other categories too.

all the polls ive seen are on tv...im sure youve seen polls on tv that have shown mccain leading.

what does money, media coverage etc...have to do with polls being unreliable and inaccurate...again do you know how they got the information for this poll? or any of the polls and statistics that you post?

[240 is Back]

what does money, media coverage etc...have to do with polls being unreliable and inaccurate...again do you know how they got the information for this poll? or any of the polls and statistics that you post?

Obama leads in the scientific state by states.

We could call this polling guilt, an anomaly, a mistake, etc.

Except for he also leads in donations.  And campaign volunteers.  And media coverage.  And attendance.

So IMO, that polling data is probably accurate, that he is more popular.  Usually the more popular guy gets more money, audience, coverage, right?

[tonymctones]

Obama leads in the scientific state by states.

We could call this polling guilt, an anomaly, a mistake, etc.

Except for he also leads in donations.  And campaign volunteers.  And media coverage.  And attendance.

So IMO, that polling data is probably accurate, that he is more popular.  Usually the more popular guy gets more money, audience, coverage, right?

LOL omg your ignorance is astounding...there are a number of other factors that apply to the other factors you pointed out...liberal voters are more outspoken and more active than conservatives just to name one. SCIENTIFIC huh well then you should be able to show the parameters of the research so plz provide them here.

[youandme]

Some news polls exclude barr and nader, who consistetly take away 7% from mccain.  Mccain

I don't see Nader taking away from McCain, in fact some republicans are funding Nader's campaign in the hopes he does take away votes from Obama.

In fact Nader is going very much against Obama, and telling it like it is. But Obama will not reply to Nader's remarks.

If Nader gets more funding he is going to be a real threat to Obama, seeing as how McCain is playing a "clean game" and not having General proxies do his battles for him.

[Dos Equis]

Independents and conservatives will not vote for Nader.  Barr is running as a libertarian.  They're pretty much irrelevant in presidential elections.

[240 is Back]

Independents and conservatives will not vote for Nader.  Barr is running as a libertarian.  They're pretty much irrelevant in presidential elections.

Was Nader irrelevant in 2000?  Was Perot irrelevant in 1992? 

If Nader doesn't run, Gore wins.
If Perot doesn't run, bush1 wins.


You can heavily influence an election even if you have no chance to win.  Perot won what, 17% of the popular vote?  Do you really think it was the tree-hugging hippies voting for the nerd and his charts?  No, it was the fiscal conservatives and isolationists who thought nafta was a bad idea, the repubs.

Bush1 should have cleaned Clinton's clock easily.

[Eldon]

Was Nader irrelevant in 2000?  Was Perot irrelevant in 1992?

If Nader doesn't run, Gore wins.
If Perot doesn't run, bush1 wins.


You can heavily influence an election even if you have no chance to win.  Perot won what, 17% of the popular vote?  Do you really think it was the tree-hugging hippies voting for the nerd and his charts?  No, it was the fiscal conservatives and isolationists who thought nafta was a bad idea, the repubs.

Bush1 should have cleaned Clinton's clock easily.

240,

Nafta really wasn't an issue yet in 1992, it wasn't being discussed in public at that point, (except behind closed doors in Washington D.C.)

It was a few years later, Perot brought out his Nafta charts, when he was debating Al Gore on Larry King.


And sadly as it is , voting for Barr or Nader, is almost the same as giving a vote to the guy you like the least.

[Dos Equis]

Was Nader irrelevant in 2000?  Was Perot irrelevant in 1992? 

   Does not address my point.  Nader drew liberals, not independents.  Perot was an independent, not a libertarian.