29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:04 am
@Foxfyre,
They do NOT use straw polling at all, let alone only. They use averages combined with a regression analysis.

Like I said: click on the state. Look at the chart. Look below the chart. There you will find the polls that are used for each state. Many of those polls are the exact same ones that RCP uses.

Here's the link to the FAQ -

http://www.pollster.com/faq/map_faq.php

Here's the explanation:

Quote:

How do regression trend lines differ from simple averages?

Charles Franklin, who created the statistical routines that plot our trend lines, provided the following explanation last year:

Our trend estimate is just that, an estimate of the trends and where the race stands as of the latest data available. It is NOT a simple average of recent polling but a "local regression" estimate of support as of the most recent poll. So if you are trying to [calculate] our trend estimates from just averaging the recent polls, you won't succeed.

Here is a way to think about this: suppose the last 5 polls in a race are 25, 27, 29, 31 and 33. Which is a better estimate of where the race stands today? 29 (the mean) or 33 (the local trend)? Since support has risen by 2 points in each successive poll, our estimator will say the trend is currently 33%, not the 29% the polls averaged over the past 2 or 3 weeks during which the last 5 polls were taken. Of course real data are more noisy than my example, so we have to fit the trend in a more complicated way than the example, but the logic is the same. Our trend estimates are local regression predictions, not simple averaging. If the data have been flat for a while, the trend and the mean will be quite close to each other. But if the polls are moving consistently either up or down, the trend estimate will be a better estimate of opinion as of today while the simple average will be an estimate of where the race was some 3 polls ago (for a 5 poll average-- longer ago as more polls are included in the average.) And that's why we estimate the trends the way we do.


Face it - Obama is way ahead in the state polling. Even on the RCP site he's way ahead.

Cycloptichorn



0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:05 am
@H2O MAN,
Yes they were, H2O, but I'm hoping they are now seeing that as counter productive and will back off on that. The American people should resist allowing the Fifth Estate to be who picks our leaders. John McCain offered us all an opportunity to set aside petty partisan rancor and actually look at the track record, qualifications, vision, and agenda of the candidates.

How refreshing it would be to actually do that.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:07 am
Quote:
Face it - Obama is way ahead in the state polling. Even on the RCP site he's way ahead.

Cycloptichorn


I'll face it when we see some current data. Okay?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:08 am
@Foxfyre,
One would think that a guy who was really interested in setting aside 'partisan rancor' wouldn't have run over 15 different attack ads on Obama, many of which compared him to Brittney Spears and Hilton, over the last 2 months. Or that his VP pick wouldn't have been condescending and rude in her speech.

Anyways - Gallup:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080905DailyUpdateGraph1_plmnhtf.gif

Race tightens some. Obama still up by 4. Even considering Palin reax, he's not down - better then I'd hoped.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:11 am
@Cycloptichorn,
How long did we have to wait for Obama's bounce to show up in the polls Cyclo?

Was it 3 or 4 days?

Wait until Tuesday and shows us your pretty pictures.
Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
In his convention speech, McCain, the self-appointed agent of change, set forth a goal of REVERTING to the past. He said, "The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics." McCain then recited the basics of Reaganomics. It's the old trickle-down economic plan that involves the wealthiest families and corporate America splashing around in a big pool of wealth with the hope that maybe a drop or two from their splashing prosperity will fall upon the working people. But, if people recall, Reagan's trickle-down economic plan was an utter failure and he had to RAISE taxes--more than once!

How can McCain make trickle-down economics work when it has never worked in the past? After all, the premise is fatally flawed. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country sinks further into recession. An occasional tax rebate that makes it possible for working people to spend a couple hundred dollars at Wal Mart isn't going to create jobs or keep people from losing their homes.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:20 am
@Debra Law,
Naturally, I agree. Conservatives seem to forget that Reagan raised taxes 7-8 times, including some very large raises.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:22 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country sinks further into recession.


Hey!, that's Obama's plan!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:28 am
@H2O MAN,
Obama got a 5 point bounce on Tuesday DURING the Democratic convention and was leading by 8 when the convention ended with Obama's speech.

Do you need help reading a calender and comparing it to the Gallup chart?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:20 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

In his convention speech, McCain, the self-appointed agent of change, set forth a goal of REVERTING to the past. He said, "The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics." McCain then recited the basics of Reaganomics. It's the old trickle-down economic plan that involves the wealthiest families and corporate America splashing around in a big pool of wealth with the hope that maybe a drop or two from their splashing prosperity will fall upon the working people. But, if people recall, Reagan's trickle-down economic plan was an utter failure and he had to RAISE taxes--more than once!

How can McCain make trickle-down economics work when it has never worked in the past? After all, the premise is fatally flawed. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the country sinks further into recession. An occasional tax rebate that makes it possible for working people to spend a couple hundred dollars at Wal Mart isn't going to create jobs or keep people from losing their homes.


Do you favor Obama's suggestion to limit drilling offshore and elsewhere but send everybody $1000 to offset high energy costs? If not, why? If so, why?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:26 pm
Interesting dynamics here:
From the Drudge Report
Quote:
BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED
Fri Sep 05 2008 08:55:46 ET

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama."

One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash!

It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech.

Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.

Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment.

Developing...


With this addendum added later:
Quote:
OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."


Along with this picture:
http://www.drudgereport.com/oo.jpg
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
So whats your take, Fox?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:36 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

So whats your take, Fox?


On what, Oprah? I think she is terrified that giving Palin any face time will hurt Obama and she really REALLY doesn't want to do that. And I think she realizes that will be a huge double standard and offensive to a sizable chunk of her audience. I also suspect she is lying through her teeth. So what is your take?
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:40 pm
@FreeDuck,
I'm not Foxfyre, but I think Oprah should invite her and ask her honest questions. I doubt Ms. Palin would accept, but she should be offered the time. I understand why Oprah would not want Clarence Thomas, I wouldn't want him near me either, but this is different.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:50 pm
parados wrote:

Do you need help reading a calender and comparing it to the Gallup chart?


It is you that requires assistance...
A convention bounce, as was the case with the Democrats, typically takes a few days to build,
so the numbers coming out over the weekend may be a more realistic gauge of public opinion.

The Palin Bounce: Obama lead cut in half, new poll shows
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

So whats your take, Fox?


On what, Oprah? I think she is terrified that giving Palin any face time will hurt Obama and she really REALLY doesn't want to do that. And I think she realizes that will be a huge double standard and offensive to a sizable chunk of her audience. I also suspect she is lying through her teeth. So what is your take?


You dont think her assertion that she isnt having any candidates on during the campaign holds water?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 01:03 pm
@FreeDuck,
Dunno. I sure think her assertion that she would "love to have Palin on" holds no water whatsoever. Very magnanimous of her to maintain 'neutrality' on her show AFTER she has given her chosen candidate some significant face time though, don't you think?

Greenwitch, whom I know to be an Obama supporter, is taking a much more realistic view than Oprah is.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 01:03 pm
Will there be an October Surprise for Election 2008?

Quote:
Subpoenas to be issued for Troopergate probe
(By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press, September 5, 2005)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) " The Alaska Legislature will work to complete its ethics investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner earlier than expected, weeks before the national election.

State Sen. Hollis French says seven witnesses told the Legislature's investigator they will not provide depositions and canceled their meetings. French, who is overseeing the investigation into whether Palin abused her power, said the Legislature will subpoena witnesses.

Lawmakers say they have put the investigation on a fast track now that Palin is Republican John McCain's running mate. The investigation previously was expected to end on Oct. 31. French says the probe will be completed three weeks earlier than that.

In July, a state oversight committee approved $100,000 for an investigation into whether Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan because he would not dismiss a trooper who went through a messy divorce with her sister before Palin ran for governor.
Foxfyre
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 01:06 pm
@wandeljw,
Don't see how there can be an "October surprise" when the anti-Palin media blitz is dragging through the mud every thing negative they can find or make up about her all the way back to gradeschool.

Megan Kelly on Fox absolutely nailed the US Magazine editor this week though. He was lying through his teeth multiple times and she had done her homework so that she exposed him in every one of them.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 01:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:



Megan Kelly on Fox absolutely nailed the US Magazine editor this week though. He was lying through his teeth multiple times and she had done her homework so that she exposed him in every one of them.


That was excellent reporting!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 07/24/2014 at 06:16:13