NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for general polls and general number-crunching. If it's Democrats, super-delegates and so on, take it to the Democrat Nomination thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554117). The other thread for US Election comment is the Issues (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554116) one.

________________________________________________________________

I have merged the last 11 posts of the mega-thread, where the discussion was centring on polls. The remainder of this post is by Kyronea:

EVERYONE! I received a very special e-mail from myself in the future! It was the results of the Presidential Election!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/presidentialelection.png

CanuckHeaven is right! We've got to nominate Hillary Clinton right away, or we're doomed to wash away in a red sea! RED SEA! DOOMED!

EDIT:

WAIT! I just got another one!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/electricboogaloo.png

Eh, nevermind what I said before. Looks like we're fucked either way.

EVERYONE! I received a very special e-mail from myself in the future! It was the results of the Presidential Election!

CanuckHeaven is right! We've got to nominate Hillary Clinton right away, or we're doomed to wash away in a red sea! RED SEA! DOOMED!

EDIT:

WAIT! I just got another one!

Eh, nevermind what I said before. Looks like we're fucked either way.
Like I said.......Hillary is more electable than Obama. :p

Can you say outlier?

Is it though? Perhaps you can provide some info that demonstrates that to be a fact?



Sure, heck, why not. I took statistics (though I had to look it up anyway...ah, retention...)

With the ordered set being (at this moment, more polls are added all the time)-
3,4,5,5,6,6,8,10,18

So, Q1 is 5 and Q3 is 8 and the IQR is 3. SUSA's result is 10 off of Q3, being more than 3 times the IQR, making it an extreme outlier. (I might have fucked this up, now that I look at it...Q1 might be 4.5 and Q3 might be 9...surely there is someone closer to their stat class that will correct me on this...either way, 18 is still an outlier.)

In order to disregard the eight other polls that all stay within 1 IQR (that's totally not the way you say that...) of Q1 or Q3 respectively you have to assume that out of nine pollers, eight of them are so far off in their data-but not only that, but they all have to be off in their data all in the exact same range-that of nine professional polsters, only one of them know what they're doing. Of all the polls listed, they have the second smallest sample size.

Zogby has Clinton up by 4 in PA and Temple has her up by 6.

Insider Advantage has her up by 10.

Sure, heck, why not. I took statistics (though I had to look it up anyway...ah, retention...)

With the ordered set being (at this moment, more polls are added all the time)-
3,4,5,5,6,6,8,10,18

So, Q1 is 5 and Q3 is 8 and the IQR is 3. SUSA's result is 10 off of Q3, being more than 3 times the IQR, making it an extreme outlier. (I might have fucked this up, now that I look at it...Q1 might be 4.5 and Q3 might be 9...surely there is someone closer to their stat class that will correct me on this...either way, 18 is still an outlier.)

In order to disregard the eight other polls that all stay within 1 IQR (that's totally not the way you say that...) of Q1 or Q3 respectively you have to assume that out of nine pollers, eight of them are so far off in their data-but not only that, but they all have to be off in their data all in the exact same range-that of nine professional polsters, only one of them know what they're doing. Of all the polls listed, they have the second smallest sample size.
I'm in stat. I was gonna have a go at it, but got too lazy. I'll go get my stat book...

15.75 is the upper cutoff, therefore 18 is an outlier.

I teach Stats sometimes (thankful not to have a Stats sections this term). Yes, 4.5 and 9 are the correct quartile points; and yes, that correction is of importance, since 18 is an extreme outlier in any case.

Pennsylvania unemployment:

http://www.ruralpa.org/trends_realitycheck.pdf

I was thinking of saying just that. The president has little to do with the economy except who he appoints and what he says. Therefore, Obama being an inspirational speaker would be perfect in the time of an economic crisis, spurring us to pull together and move forward.
So Obama can fix an "economic crisis" just by being an "being an inspirational speaker"?

The Wizard of Obamaland?

Actually...its a net gain of 5 Million. Nice try though.
Source?

So Obama can fix an "economic crisis" just by being an "being an inspirational speaker"?

The Wizard of Obamaland?

Uh, no, that's not what Sel said. He said that Obama could help by being an inspirational speaker, which is true, because an inspirational speaker usually motivates people better, which means someone might develop a better plan, ect ect.

It's not guaranteed, obviously, but hey, it helps.

Also, just what the hell is up with you using a question mark at the end of practically every sentence of your posts? It's driving me nuts.

In other words, you cannot back up your counter claim?

Can you back up yours?

I'm in stat. I was gonna have a go at it, but got too lazy. I'll go get my stat book...

15.75 is the upper cutoff, therefore 18 is an outlier.

Thanks. It seems we people from NJ are pretty good at math:cool:

CH, are you now ignoring what I and other posters, have shown you regarding stats?

CH, are you now ignoring what I and other posters, have shown you regarding stats?

He is offline :D

Well in todays poll there is another wide spread poll showing Clinton 57% and Obama 37%, or +20. Another outlier? :D

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

American Research Group, Inc (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 44% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 64% to 31%.

Clinton leads 64% to 29% among white voters (82% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 79% to 18% among African American voters (14% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Clinton leads 52% to 43% among voters age 18 to 49 (50% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 62% to 31% among voters age 50 and older.

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

23% of likely Democratic primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama's advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

Well in todays poll there is another wide spread poll showing Clinton 57% and Obama 37%, or +20. Another outlier? :D

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

American Research Group, Inc (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

Um, yes, by definition, it's an outlier. You don't really know much about stats, huh?

It is, however, from a new period so it could actually change. See, this is the second relatively small sampling that came up with a vastly different result set than what we saw in numerous other samplings that were often larger and very much came with in standard deviation.

I'll explain it this way. What if I took 10 of us and had us all reach into a barrel full of checkers? I leave up to each person to pull between 100 and 200 checkers.

Here are the results.

Jocabia - 200 - 50% red, 50% black
CTOAN - 170 - 45% red, 55% black
Kyronea - 120 - 55% red, 45% black
Jimmy - 100 - 53% red, 47% black
Kelly - 162 - 46% red, 54% black
Kip - 174 - 47% red, 53% black
Kristi - 122 - 54% red, 46% black
Becky - 178 - 56% red, 44% black
Eric - 137 - 44% red, 56% black
CH - 100 - 80% red, 20% black

Now we have an average around 50% discounting your extreme outlier. It's possible that out of hundreds of samples that everyone happened to skew the same way, but the evidence doesn't support that. The evidence only supports discarding your sample as an outlier. Now, I know you don't like following the evidence, but, unfortunately, this is debate and when all evidence disagrees with you, you lose.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

Clinton's lead has decreased by .3 points according to the latest average by RCP.

Actually, you're not. He's crediting Clinton with it. I don't credit the presidents at all. These moves happened as we were changing Presidents in both cases. GWB couldn't have caused the downturn because he'd only just taken office a couple of months earlier. Similar with Clinton. It wasn't GHWB who opened up the internet to commercial traffic. It was Congress. Clinton wasn't in Congress and had nothing to do with it. Nor did either Bush.

I stand corrected. I looked at the post late at night, and I think I gave CH the benefit of the doubt. I'll never do that again. Interesting to read, a while ago as it may be, that you are a former Marine. I don't think it totally leads to our common views, but I'm sure it has a little to do with it.

Well in todays poll there is another wide spread poll showing Clinton 57% and Obama 37%, or +20. Another outlier? :D

http://www.realcOnlearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

American Research Group, Inc (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

Wow, thank you for the stats. Now I'll teach you a little something if you don't mind? (rhetorical of course)

The spread from ARG from 4-6 to 4-13 is an outlier even for that polling group. It went from 45-45 to a spread of 20. Statistically speaking the true number is probably a mean standard deviation in between the two of those numbers.

The polling numbers you gave show Obama with a 20 point lead in NC, so thank you for that. As I've shown earlier (maybe in another thread) there are more delegates at stake in NC and IN than in PA alone. Either way you look at it Hillary will never catch Obama, and he might still open a bigger lead.

If you look at the full data you see that the poll with the largest polling sample (and smallest margin of error) it shows Obama up 10 points nationally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

In PA the RCP avg. is 7 points in favor of Clinton. The number rage from 3-18. The scores from 3-10 fall within the standard deviation, but the %18 as we said before is an outlier. RCP should not even include it in their numbers if they wanted to be strict with their stats. They do use it so the average goes up to 7. Remove the outlier and you get an avg. 5.167 repeating.

NC will make up for whatever ground lost in PA and Indiana will be close as well, thereby giving no real clear advantage to Clinton. After PA and NC/IN the chorus of "Get out Clinton" will get louder. Mark my words as I'd be willing to place a wager on it. That's how statistically confident I am.

When it comes to stats you must take note that I used statistics to pick my NCAA bracket picks, won my office pool, and was 15th in the nation according to to cbssportsline.com I'd say my mathematical calculations are pretty good. :D

Wow, thank you for the stats. Now I'll teach you a little something if you don't mind? (rhetorical of course)

The spread from ARG from 4-6 to 4-13 is an outlier even for that polling group. It went from 45-45 to a spread of 20. Statistically speaking the true number is probably a mean standard deviation in between the two of those numbers.

The polling numbers you gave show Obama with a 20 point lead in NC, so thank you for that. As I've shown earlier (maybe in another thread) there are more delegates at stake in NC and IN than in PA alone. Either way you look at it Hillary will never catch Obama, and he might still open a bigger lead.

If you look at the full data you see that the poll with the largest polling sample (and smallest margin of error) it shows Obama up 10 points nationally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls

In PA the RCP avg. is 7 points in favor of Clinton. The number rage from 3-18. The scores from 3-10 fall within the standard deviation, but the %18 as we said before is an outlier. RCP should not even include it in their numbers if they wanted to be strict with their stats. They do use it so the average goes up to 7. Remove the outlier and you get an avg. 5.167 repeating.

NC will make up for whatever ground lost in PA and Indiana will be close as well, thereby giving no real clear advantage to Clinton. After PA and NC/IN the chorus of "Get out Clinton" will get louder. Mark my words as I'd be willing to place a wager on it. That's how statistically confident I am.

When it comes to stats you must take note that I used statistics to pick my NCAA bracket picks, won my office pool, and was 15th in the nation according to to cbssportsline.com I'd say my mathematical calculations are pretty good. :D

For the record, I won my pool for the second year in a row and three out of four years, with the max entrants at over 100. 2 of those victories have been decisive and I haven't put the least mathematical effort into selecting winners. I don't ever watch NCAA basketball except for the tournament and simply go with my gut. So I'm not sure your success there proves much. Statistically, all of the number ones making it to final four should happen more often than it does. And looking at outcomes from past years, having all number 1's in the final four is wildly unlikely.

Um, yes, by definition, it's an outlier. You don't really know much about stats, huh?

It is, however, from a new period so it could actually change. See, this is the second relatively small sampling that came up with a vastly different result set than what we saw in numerous other samplings that were often larger and very much came with in standard deviation.

I'll explain it this way. What if I took 10 of us and had us all reach into a barrel full of checkers? I leave up to each person to pull between 100 and 200 checkers.

Here are the results.

Jocabia - 200 - 50% red, 50% black
CTOAN - 170 - 45% red, 55% black
Kyronea - 120 - 55% red, 45% black
Jimmy - 100 - 53% red, 47% black
Kelly - 162 - 46% red, 54% black
Kip - 174 - 47% red, 53% black
Kristi - 122 - 54% red, 46% black
Becky - 178 - 56% red, 44% black
Eric - 137 - 44% red, 56% black
CH - 100 - 80% red, 20% black

Now we have an average around 50% discounting your extreme outlier. It's possible that out of hundreds of samples that everyone happened to skew the same way, but the evidence doesn't support that. The evidence only supports discarding your sample as an outlier. Now, I know you don't like following the evidence, but, unfortunately, this is debate and when all evidence disagrees with you, you lose.
Ummmmm thanks for the explanation but I know about "outliers" in polls. I just think that it is great to see more polls showing a wider Clinton lead popping up. If there are enough in the + 15 to + 20 range, then the ones in the 4+ category will be "outliers". :D

Well in todays poll there is another wide spread poll showing Clinton 57% and Obama 37%, or +20. Another outlier? :D

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

American Research Group, Inc (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

Well, let's see, shall we?

3,3,4,5,6,10,18,20

Q1 3.5 M 5.5 Q3 14 IQR 11.5

Hey, congratulations. It actually isn't. There is a reduction in the number of polls listed (interestingly enough, however, RCP doesn't actually include the ARG poll in its averages...no idea why.)

One more poll in the normal range of things would thrust both the 18 and 20 back into extreme outlier territory rather easily, so leaning on the two polls that are that far out of range of the rest is still blindly optomistic.

However, three things will be happening between when the last polls were taken and Tuesday next week-the feigned offense over Obama's statement, the 'compassion forum' (silly), and Wednesday's debate. For the first, these things have not had as profound an effect that all the brouhaha has suggested. For the second, I have no idea, I was working. From the brief NPR reports it was essentially still sawing over the first thing. Wednesday, who knows. I suspect that polls that come out Friday will be telling different stories. Probably not too different, but there'll be a shift.

I still contend that Clinton will only be able to manage single digits. Should there be more slippage she could manage a high single digit, maybe around 8%, but that'll be the ceiling. CH refused to answer my question about what he considers a blow out, but since he's so married to the two polls out of step with the rest he is planting his flag in the 18 to 20 range.

We'll see who is right.

Ummmmm thanks for the explanation but I know about "outliers" in polls.

Clearly you do not as you needed proof the last time when the poll was a clear outlier before doing the math...

I just think that it is great to see more polls showing a wider Clinton lead popping up. If there are enough in the + 15 to + 20 range, then the ones in the 4+ category will be "outliers". :D
See, no you don't, it would place the ones that are <4 as outliers. And wishing is great, it has no real application, but hey...

EDIT: I think I found the reason (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/) that it's not included in RCP's averages-
A new survey showing Sen. Hillary Clinton leading Sen. Barack Obama by 20 percentage points in Pennsylvania comes from a polling firm with a shaky track record this election season.
...
But there are reasons to question ARG polling numbers. In a polling report card of 2008 primary accuracy issued by a rival survey company, ARG ranked in the bottom half of more than three dozen polling firms, among 2008 primaries through late February. It also ranked near the bottom in another ranking of pollster accuracy at fivethirtyeight.com, a Web site that tracks the Electoral College. And, as I wrote last month, the widely tracked polling averages at the political Web site Real Clear Politics don’t include ARG numbers, because of concerns about transparency. Like they’ve been in Pennsylvania, ARG polls also were volatile in previous primaries, notably in Wisconsin, which saw a 16-point swing in just two days.
...
Other pollsters’ numbers disagree with ARG’s. Clay Richards, who runs the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute’s Pennsylvania poll, said he doesn’t expect his poll that will be published Tuesday to show much difference from the last one, which had a Clinton lead of six points. “I don’t see that much movement in Pennsylvania myself,” Mr. Richards said by phone from Harrisburg on Monday. He declined to comment specifically on his rival’s contradictory numbers.

And, interestingly enough-
Both pollsters agreed that Sen. Obama hasn’t been hurt much by his remarks about small-town Pennsylvania voters last week. Mr. Bennett said few respondents mentioned them. Mr. Richards said, “My hunch is [the remarks] won’t make much of a difference because most voters who might feel insulted by his comments were already Clinton voters or republicans who weren’t going to vote for him, anyway.”

Ummmmm thanks for the explanation but I know about "outliers" in polls. I just think that it is great to see more polls showing a wider Clinton lead popping up. If there are enough in the + 15 to + 20 range, then the ones in the 4+ category will be "outliers". :D

Do you? Your posts don't reflect an understanding of statistics or outliers.

You know what would make your argument less silly? Not picking the outlier polls just because you like them. Interestingly enough, when the same source presented that the candidates were even, you rejected that one. You're not even consistent with yourself.

Selective evidence is illogical and makes for a poor argument. However, we all know you know that and that you know you're doing it.

Do you? Your posts don't reflect an understanding of statistics or outliers.

You know what would make your argument less silly? Not picking the outlier polls just because you like them. Interestingly enough, when the same source presented that the candidates were even, you rejected that one. You're not even consistent with yourself.

Selective evidence is illogical and makes for a poor argument. However, we all know you know that and that you know you're doing it.

Check the edit, apparently there's a reason it's not included in the average.

For the record, I won my pool for the second year in a row and three out of four years, with the max entrants at over 100. 2 of those victories have been decisive and I haven't put the least mathematical effort into selecting winners. I don't ever watch NCAA basketball except for the tournament and simply go with my gut. So I'm not sure your success there proves much. Statistically, all of the number ones making it to final four should happen more often than it does. And looking at outcomes from past years, having all number 1's in the final four is wildly unlikely.

Well, the thousands I competed against on cbssportsline is a little bigger than a pool of 100. But if you want to poo poo on my accomplishment then.... you're just mean. :p

Check the edit, apparently there's a reason it's not included in the average.

Say it ain't so, Jerry. I'm shocked. That's what I am.

Well, the thousands I competed against on cbssportsline is a little bigger than a pool of 100. But if you want to poo poo on my accomplishment then.... you're just mean. :p

I'd love to compare our brackets, actually. It would be funny if they're very similar and I practically did it randomly and in about five minutes.

You might not be entirely surprised by this, but CH tends to selectively look at evidence and claim anyone who doesn't is "shouting him down".

That's not true at all, Jo.

Sometimes he just accuses the other of "flames", then lies and says he never claimed that.

That's not true at all, Jo.

Sometimes he just accuses the other of "flames", then lies and says he never claimed that.

Liar.

(I didn't say that.)

Sure. Clinton did lots of good things while in office, but it's undeniable that the most major factor in the 90's economy was the internet boom, which he didn't create. The single greatest factor in the slowdown in the economy in the 00's was the bursting of the bubble, which he, again, did nothing about. (Admittedly, it would have been political suicide to have attempting to slow growth to more realistic levels.) That's the issue here. I'm not giving him no credit. I'm simply and accurately pointing out that Clinton didn't create the 90's. He only presided over them. Now, he did an excellent job of capitalizing on them to the benefit of our deficit among other things, but even under clinto we saw the wage gap increase. The people who ended up better off weren't the poor.

You might not be entirely surprised by this, but CH tends to selectively look at evidence and claim anyone who doesn't is "shouting him down". So he has to pretend I'm not giving any credit to Clinton when I look at the things Clinton did wrong at the same time as giving him credit for doing things right. In the case of manufacturing, NAFTA did horrible damage. The fact that the internet sector managed to make the growth positive doesn't change that the manufacturing sector was taking it in the soft bits during the 90's (and the 80's and 00's).

Ah, that clears everything up. Thanks.

One more poll in the normal range of things would thrust both the 18 and 20 back into extreme outlier territory rather easily, so leaning on the two polls that are that far out of range of the rest is still blindly optomistic.
At this point, I crave the wildly optomistic outlook. :D

Probably not too different, but there'll be a shift.
Towards the wildly optomistic side!!

CH refused to answer my question about what he considers a blow out, but since he's so married to the two polls out of step with the rest he is planting his flag in the 18 to 20 range.

We'll see who is right.
Clinton:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2autL7uj7RQjMM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/I-57.svg/600px-I-57.svg.png

Obama:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:0TlFpTxrUTb4wM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Georgia_32.svg/500px-Georgia_32.svg.png

I am wildly:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/398408295_73b259098f.jpg

Ah, that clears everything up. Thanks.

I'm very serious. I hate all the hyperbole of the parties. One party is not evil. One is not all good. Good presidents do bad things and bad presidents do good things. I base my view on incorporating the entirety of evidence not cherrypicking what I want to see.

That we can agree on, CH. 15% is good outcome for her. It will certainly justify her continued candidacy. I don't think it's all that unlikely either. She should do well in PA, though if I was betting I would take slightly under 10%. Maybe 8.

That we can agree on, CH. 15% is good outcome for her. It will certainly justify her continued candidacy. I don't think it's all that unlikely either. She should do well in PA, though if I was betting I would take slightly under 10%. Maybe 8.

Hey, I already picked 8 as my hedge bet...and don't go Price is Righting me by picking 8.1...

I'm very serious. I hate all the hyperbole of the parties. One party is not evil. One is not all good. Good presidents do bad things and bad presidents do good things. I base my view on incorporating the entirety of evidence not cherrypicking what I want to see.

I didn't say you weren't.

I try to look at things like that too. It can be hard to do though. Very hard. The natural human tendency to see only what one wants to see is hard to fight.

I didn't say you weren't.

I try to look at things like that too. It can be hard to do though. Very hard. The natural human tendency to see only what one wants to see is hard to fight.

I know. Just look at the post above yours.

I know. Just look at the post above yours.

Oh.

Yeah, I've given up on CanuckHeaven. I used to think he actually was reasonable, but this two-month long binge he's been going on has completely destroyed any respect I ever had for the man.

Oh.

Yeah, I've given up on CanuckHeaven. I used to think he actually was reasonable, but this two-month long binge he's been going on has completely destroyed any respect I ever had for the man.

Did you see the graph based on his numbers? Interestingly, that tiny growth in the lower 50% in the last 40 years hasn't nearly matched the growth in cost of necessities. Necessities tend to cost about 5 times as much. Bread. Housing. Shoes. Gas (which affects the price of everything else).

Interestingly, the price of luxuries haven't changed much, so the rich not only got richer, but they also didn't have to pay more for what they spend most of their money on like the poor did.

http://www.bbhq.com/prices.htm

Here's some fun with polls:

McCain over Obama in Florida, 53-38, *but*

only tied with Obama in North Carolina, which of course Bush won handily in '04.

Now, wouldn't that be a bizarre turn of events! :p

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election

Could be a funky season.

Here's some fun with polls:

McCain over Obama in Florida, 53-38, *but*

only tied with Obama in North Carolina, which of course Bush won handily in '04.

Now, wouldn't that be a bizarre turn of events! :p

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election

Could be a funky season.


It's definitely going to be one to watch.

At this point, I crave the wildly optomistic outlook. :D

That's because you live Billary so much.

Towards the wildly optomistic side!!

I would ask for proof but we'll have to wait and see.

This is why I dislike the split, this point, while based on a poll, contributes to the discussion in the DP thread...alright, done whining...

The new polls are out, and now we get to see the immediate effect of the 'gaffe'...

First up, Rasmussen- (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary)

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Clinton now attracts 50% of the vote while Obama earns 41%.

That’s a slight improvement for Clinton who led by five percentage points a week ago.
Up she goes, and here they lay it out-
Among voters from households where someone owns a gun, Clinton leads by seventeen points. Voters from other households are more evenly divided.

Clinton leads among voters who say faith and religion are Somewhat or Very Important. Obama leads among those who say such topics are Not Very Important or Not at All Important.

Sixty percent (60%) of Likely Democratic Primary voters in Pennsylvania say that it is Very Important for the government to enforce the borders and reduce illegal immigration. Among these voters, Clinton leads by sixteen.
however-
Twenty-three percent (23%) of Likely Primary Voters rate their personal finances as poor. Among these voters, the candidates are even—Obama wins 46% of their votes, Clinton 44%.

But the meat-
Nationally, 56% of all voters disagree with controversial statements made by Barack Obama on why cling to religion, guns, and “anti-immigrant” attitudes.

In Pennsylvania, 75% of Likely Primary Voters have heard of the remarks. Thirty-five percent (35%) agree and 51% disagree. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Obama supporters agree with the comments while 25% disagree. Among Clinton supporters, 73% disagree.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) say that the comments reflect an elitist view of small town America. Forty-eight percent (48%) disagree. Most Clinton voters (57%) believe Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view while Obama voters overwhelmingly reject that notion.

In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 74% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Obama by 72%. Those figures are little changed from a week ago.

An effect, to be sure, but hardly a sunk ship.

Next up, much discussed SurveyUSA (http://www.nbc10.com/politics/15884424/detail.html?dl=headlineclick)-
It concluded that 54 percent would vote for Clinton and 40 percent would vote for Obama. Three percent chose the "other" category.

The remaining three percent of likely voters said they were undecided. The margin of error for the question was 3.9 percent.
...
Clinton has polled at 55, 53, 56 and 54 percent in the SurveyUSA polls, while Obama has polled 36, 41, 38 and 40 percent.

However, the contest remains tight in Southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia.

The poll also found that Obama gained ground among Democrats who attend religious services regularly.

In the Pittsburgh and Johnstown areas, Clinton gained ground, while Obama picked up support in the Harrisburg area.

The 1,600 interviewees were questioned for the poll Saturday through Monday.
No report on why that number is 4 points lower than it was a week ago.

Finally, Quinnipiac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1168)-
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has stalled Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's drive in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary and holds a 50 - 44 percent lead among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, unchanged from April 8 results.

There was no noticeable change in the matchup in polling April 12 - 13, following widespread media reports on Sen. Obama's 'bitter' comments.
No movement at all...
White voters for Clinton 57 - 37 percent, compared to 56 - 38 percent last week;
Black voters back Obama 86 - 8 percent, compared to 75 - 17 percent;
Women back Clinton 54 - 40 percent, unchanged from 54 - 41 percent last week;
Men are for Obama 51 - 43 percent, compared to a 48 - 44 percent tie last week;
Reagan Democrats back Clinton 55 - 40 percent;
Voters under 45 go with Obama 55 - 39, while older voters back Clinton 55 - 40 percent.

There's your fall out.

Now we have to wait and see what happens after the debate.

This is why I dislike the split, this point, while based on a poll, contributes to the discussion in the DP thread...alright, done whining...

The new polls are out, and now we get to see the immediate effect of the 'gaffe'...

First up, Rasmussen- (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary)


Up she goes, and here they lay it out-

however-


But the meat-


An effect, to be sure, but hardly a sunk ship.

Next up, much discussed SurveyUSA (http://www.nbc10.com/politics/15884424/detail.html?dl=headlineclick)-

No report on why that number is 4 points lower than it was a week ago.

Finally, Quinnipiac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1168)-

No movement at all...


There's your fall out.
Yeah...essentially it's like a shell fired near a ship bursting in air. It sends some shards and fragments and kills or injures a few crewmembers, but the ship itself keeps on rolling with nary a scratch.

As for the gaffe though...the thing is, he's right. He phrased it improperly--that sort of statement is extremely difficult to phrase without sounding insulting--but he's right. People ARE bitter, and in general they do tend to look towards something to compensate. We wouldn't have drug addicts and alcoholics if that wasn't the case.

A few things and they do go here:

For starters, Franklin and Marshall came out with a poll and has CLinton up by 6 points with a margin of error of 5.1%

Also a poll of polls came out today to see who the people wanted as the nominee and apparently Obama has a 9 point lead.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/poll-obama-expands-lead-nationally/

The last one of these polls had Obama up by 3 percentage points. What is telling is that four of the days that the poll was being conducted were after Obama's so called controversial comments.

A few things and they do go here:

For starters, Franklin and Marshall came out with a poll and has CLinton up by 6 points with a margin of error of 5.1%

Also a poll of polls came out today to see who the people wanted as the nominee and apparently Obama has a 9 point lead.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/poll-obama-expands-lead-nationally/

The last one of these polls had Obama up by 3 percentage points. What is telling is that four of the days that the poll was being conducted were after Obama's so called controversial comments.
From the SurveyUSA poll:

In the Pittsburgh and Johnstown areas, Clinton gained ground
Hey Corny.....isn't that where you are helping out team Obama? Keep up the good work!! :D

From the SurveyUSA poll:


Hey Corny.....isn't that where you are helping out team Obama? Keep up the good work!! :D

Hey, since you're losing basically in every way in this debate, better take your victories where you can? No matter how cheap and pointless, right?

Hey, since you're losing basically in every way in this debate, better take your victories where you can?
I am losing the debate as far as you are concerned but time will tell whether you were right or wrong? But in the meantime, go ahead and bask in the limelight that you crave so much.

No matter how cheap and pointless, right?
And you will take your cheap shots every chance you get, even if they are undeserved. :p

I am losing the debate as far as you are concerned but time will tell whether you were right or wrong? But in the meantime, go ahead and bask in the limelight that you crave so much.

Even if you turn out to be right, you'll still have lost the debate. See, debates are based on evidence and the evidence doesn't support your claim.

Let's say for example you were here arguing that gravity is intermittent and that we just haven't been measuring it for long enough to know that. And you claimed that as long as we don't look at all the evidence an only look at the numbers you selected it means it's true. When demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty in your claims, you lose. That's still true even if by a stroke of luck you turn out to be right.

In this case, you can't be shown to be right or wrong. You claimed that Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama. They won't both run against him. As such, we're just going to have to stick with the obvious dishonesty of picking and choosing evidence like outlier polls (one of which has be resoundingly shown to be unreliable) or pretending that you take some of the information from a poll and ignore everything else, especially that the same poll's conclusion was that we are correct about the current state of things.

And you will take your cheap shots every chance you get, even if they are undeserved. :p

Uh-huh. Your entire post was just an attack on Corneliu. Frequently, that's all you post. You seem to think if you get your cheap shots on Corny, that will make up for losing the argument. It doesn't. At least, I both defeat your arguments AND take cheap shots.

You've completely stopped debating and your current tactics are the occasional driveby. For example, you didn't mention that the same data you quoted to claim all the good Clinton did for the poorer classes showed that in fact the only grouped that really faired well during the nineties were people that were already pretty well of. Same data, some of which you, as usual, conveniently ignored. But, hey, don't debate. Just take those cheap shots, tuck tail and slip away until next time.

Even if you turn out to be right, you'll still have lost the debate. See, debates are based on evidence and the evidence doesn't support your claim.
The evidence supports my claim(s). You choose to ignore the evidence.

Let's say for example you were here arguing that gravity is intermittent and that we just haven't been measuring it for long enough to know that. And you claimed that as long as we don't look at all the evidence an only look at the numbers you selected it means it's true. When demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty in your claims, you lose.
You figure if you shout down the opposition that you can claim victory. You have also made claims that are "intellectually dishonest", and have no basis in reality. But, you go ahead and trot out your inaccurate analogies and continue the smack down approach.....they are such valuable tools in any debate. :p

That's still true even if by a stroke of luck you turn out to be right.
I see, if I am right, it will be "a stroke of luck", whereby if you are right, it will because of your superior debating tools and "evidence"?

In this case, you can't be shown to be right or wrong. You claimed that Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama. They won't both run against him.
Damn....you are smarter than I thought you were.

As such, we're just going to have to stick with the obvious dishonesty of picking and choosing evidence like outlier polls (one of which has be resoundingly shown to be unreliable)
I told you that I like the "outlier" polls that favour Clinton, just like some here like the "outlier" polls that favour Obama. As far as your claim that "one of which has be resoundingly shown to be unreliable", I am forced to ask you to prove that assertion.

or pretending that you take some of the information from a poll and ignore everything else, especially that the same poll's conclusion was that we are correct about the current state of things.
Example please.

Uh-huh. Your entire post was just an attack on Corneliu.
It was a friendly salvo. We do that all the time. I am glad you are taking good care of him though.

Frequently, that's all you post.
No my friend, that is your style. You do it so often you probably are unaware of how often you do it?

You seem to think if you get your cheap shots on Corny, that will make up for losing the argument.
Again you presume that I have lost "the argument", and no, I am not trying to make up for any perceived loss.

At least, I both defeat your arguments AND take cheap shots.
Well, at least you admit to taking "cheap shots". The rest of your claim has no basis in reality.

The evidence supports my claim(s). You choose to ignore the evidence.

Oh, the irony. Apparently, "ignoring the evidence" to you means incorporating all the states you ignore, reading all of the statements you take excerpts of, researching the context of statements, and looking at everything a poll says and not taking information out of it selectively.


You figure if you shout down the opposition that you can claim victory. You have also made claims that are "intellectually dishonest", and have no basis in reality. But, you go ahead and trot out your inaccurate analogies and continue the smack down approach.....they are such valuable tools in any debate. :p

Heh. Yes, we've heard how you consider it "shouting down the opposition" when people show that your selectively choosing evidence. But, let's continue on and see if I can support my claims.


I see, if I am right, it will be "a stroke of luck", whereby if you are right, it will because of your superior debating tools and "evidence"?

No, being right is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Just like whether you get to the correct conclusion in science doesn't demonstrate that your science is sound. See, both science and debate require you to adhere to certain methodologies. You cling to fallacies. If you're right, it will be blind luck. However, we'll never know, because your claim cannot be found to be true, since they can't both end up going against McCain.


Damn....you are smarter than I thought you were.

And yet you keep claiming we'll know in November. Apparently, you're not as smart as you thought I was.

I told you that I like the "outlier" polls that favour Clinton, just like some here like the "outlier" polls that favour Obama. As far as your claim that "one of which has be resoundingly shown to be unreliable", I am forced to ask you to prove that assertion.

And I disagree with both you and the "some". I look at all the relevant polls because thats what reasonable people do.

You want me to prove that the poll you listed isn't even included in RCP because it's methodology was suspect? How about that their numbers are all over the map? Being an outlier is usually enough, but that they are both an outlier AND have suspect methodology is more than enough.

Example please.

You used SurveyUSA's poll data but rejected their conclusion, rejected the states you didn't agree with and refused to consider there data as a whole. Do you suppose we've all forgotten? See what I mean about intellectual dishonesty?


It was a friendly salvo. We do that all the time. I am glad you are taking good care of him though.

Uh-huh. It's what substitutes for debate for you. Like I said, take your victories where you can get them. They are few and far between.

No my friend, that is your style. You do it so often you probably are unaware of how often you do it?

Really, I guess it wasn't you I was quoting doing exactly that. Golly. You responded to a post that included a poll and all you did was attack the person who posted it.


Again you presume that I have lost "the argument", and no, I am not trying to make up for any perceived loss.

You're right. You've only lost if you realize how debate works.

Well, at least you admit to taking "cheap shots". The rest of your claim has no basis in reality.

Oh, the irony. I take cheap shots all the time. I'd be embarrassed if it was the most substantive thing in my argument. Fortunately, I'm not you.

At this point, the following article is of interest...

Consider the Dartmouth-Princeton football game in 1951. That bitterly fought contest was the subject of a landmark study about how our biases shape our understanding of reality.

Psychologists showed a film clip of the football game to groups of students at each college and asked them to act as unbiased referees and note every instance of cheating. The results were striking. Each group, watching the same clip, was convinced that the other side had cheated worse - and this was not deliberate bias or just for show.

The simple fact is, where we're supporting sides and looking at evidence, we see what we want to see.

That's what we seem to be seeing in the Democratic primaries. Even though the policy differences between the two candidates are minimal, each camp is becoming increasingly aggravated at the other. A Washington Post poll published Wednesday found that more than one-third of Democrats say that they may not support their party's nominee if it is not their own choice.

Another challenge is the biased way in which we gather information.

We seek out information that reinforces our prejudices. One study presented listeners with static-filled recordings of speeches that they believed they were judging on persuasive power. Listeners could push a button to tweak the signal, reducing the static to make it easier to understand.

We don't see what we don't want to see.

So in conclusion...

If you're a Democrat, your candidate won in Wednesday night's presidential debate - that was obvious, and most neutral observers would recognize that. But the other candidate issued appalling distortions, and the news commentary afterward was shamefully biased.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/opinion/edkristof.php)

Oh, the irony. Apparently, "ignoring the evidence" to you means incorporating all the states you ignore, reading all of the statements you take excerpts of, researching the context of statements, and looking at everything a poll says and not taking information out of it selectively.
Nice try. I refer you to this post where all is explained:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13602094&postcount=3453

Irony indeed!!

Heh. Yes, we've heard how you consider it "shouting down the opposition" when people show that your selectively choosing evidence. But, let's continue on and see if I can support my claims.
I think it is more akin to putting the boots to a poster who is exposing information that you don't want to hear.

No, being right is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
But, but Joc you just have to be right.....all the time.

Just like whether you get to the correct conclusion in science doesn't demonstrate that your science is sound. See, both science and debate require you to adhere to certain methodologies. You cling to fallacies.
I don't "cling to fallacies"....I throw out an opinion and back it with as much evidence as I can. You have done the same and so have many others. The problem exists when one decides that their evidence is more tangible than the others even though that may not be the case.

If you're right, it will be blind luck.
Of course it will be blind luck for only you have the skill sets to prove without a doubt that your "evidence" is infallible.

However, we'll never know, because your claim cannot be found to be true, since they can't both end up going against McCain.
Nope, only one can go up against McCain. I truly believe that Hillary is the only one that can beat him. I believe that the only way that Obama can beat McCain is if it is an Obama/Clinton ticket, which I believe is very unlikely.

And yet you keep claiming we'll know in November.
If Hillary gets the nod and wins, I will be right. If Obama gets the nod and loses, I will be right.

And I disagree with both you and the "some". I look at all the relevant polls because thats what reasonable people do.
I look at "all the relevant polls" as well and I do realize that some appear tainted.

You want me to prove that the poll you listed isn't even included in RCP because it's methodology was suspect? How about that their numbers are all over the map? Being an outlier is usually enough, but that they are both an outlier AND have suspect methodology is more than enough.
Yet that same polling firm (SurveyUSA) is presently included in that todays RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html). I guess they must have cleaned up their act?

You used SurveyUSA's poll data but rejected their conclusion, rejected the states you didn't agree with and refused to consider there data as a whole. Do you suppose we've all forgotten? See what I mean about intellectual dishonesty?
Yeah, I see what you mean about "intellectual dishonesty".......you and CTOAN and others were extensively using SurveyUSA's stats to make your points in the other thread and now all of a sudden, they are no longer acceptable because their "methodology was suspect", and "their numbers are all over the map", and which you now claim that "has been resoundingly shown to be unreliable".

Uh-huh. It's what substitutes for debate for you.
You have been doing that all day with KindaSimple, Balderdash, mildly with Free Soviets and now me. Look in the mirror. Look at your debating style and quit trying to suggest that you are somehow above all that.

Like I said, take your victories where you can get them. They are few and far between.
See.....you are addicted to the cheap shot. Get over yourself man.

Really, I guess it wasn't you I was quoting doing exactly that. Golly. You responded to a post that included a poll and all you did was attack the person who posted it.
See above.

You're right. You've only lost if you realize how debate works.
You are on a roll.....why stop????

Oh, the irony. I take cheap shots all the time. I'd be embarrassed if it was the most substantive thing in my argument.
You should be "embarrassed" indeed.

Yet that same polling firm (SurveyUSA) is presently included in that todays RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html). I guess they must have cleaned up their act?


Yeah, I see what you mean about "intellectual dishonesty".......you and CTOAN and others were extensively using SurveyUSA's stats to make your points in the other thread and now all of a sudden, they are no longer acceptable because their "methodology was suspect", and "their numbers are all over the map", and which you now claim that "has been resoundingly shown to be unreliable".

Wrong poll. Go back, re-read. Then pretend it never happened just like every time you make a stupid mistake like this.

Nice try. I refer you to this post where all is explained:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13602094&postcount=3453

Irony indeed!!

You mean the post where I analyzed all the data you skipped? Yes, I know it was all analyzed. We're talking about how YOU skipped over it.


I think it is more akin to putting the boots to a poster who is exposing information that you don't want to hear.

I want to hear all information. Only one of us has repeatedly admitted they only want to look at data that favors them.


But, but Joc you just have to be right.....all the time.

Well, then, it's a good thing for me that I'm so willing to do the work to make sure that happens as often as possible. YOU, on the other, just have to PRETEND you're right.



I don't "cling to fallacies"....I throw out an opinion and back it with as much evidence as I can. You have done the same and so have many others. The problem exists when one decides that their evidence is more tangible than the others even though that may not be the case.

That's actually the most honest things you've ever said. You throw out an opinion and back it up with as much evidence as you can. And throw away all the evidence that doesn't lead to the conclusion that you "threw out". I decide that all evidence should be considered, not just the evidence that agrees with what I WANT to be true.

Of course it will be blind luck for only you have the skill sets to prove without a doubt that your "evidence" is infallible.

Me and every other poster that's ever been in the thread. No one has agreed with you. No one.

Nope, only one can go up against McCain. I truly believe that Hillary is the only one that can beat him. I believe that the only way that Obama can beat McCain is if it is an Obama/Clinton ticket, which I believe is very unlikely.

Fortunately for us, the evidence doesn't support your claim. Hillary doesn't support your claim. And Obama is going to be the candidate.

If Hillary gets the nod and wins, I will be right. If Obama gets the nod and loses, I will be right.

Uh, no. That's doesn't demonstrate that you were right. You said Hillary was better positioned. So you'd also have to know who Obama would have done if Hillary wins and how Hillary would have done if Obama wins. See how that works? Or are you claiming you can extrapolate one but not the other?

You continue to demonstrate exactly how clearly you don't understand.

I look at "all the relevant polls" as well and I do realize that some appear tainted.

Yes, they are all the polls you don't like. I notice. No, wait, not the whole polls. Just the parts you don't like. For example, SurveyUSA is very reliable when their poll says good things about Hillary and when it doesn't only the parts you like are reliable.

Yet that same polling firm (SurveyUSA) is presently included in that todays RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html). I guess they must have cleaned up their act?

Um... we're not talking about SurveyUSA. We're talking about ARG which you cited in an attempt to make SurveyUSA not look like an outlier poll. Nice try, though.

Yeah, I see what you mean about "intellectual dishonesty".......you and CTOAN and others were extensively using SurveyUSA's stats to make your points in the other thread and now all of a sudden, they are no longer acceptable because their "methodology was suspect", and "their numbers are all over the map", and which you now claim that "has been resoundingly shown to be unreliable".

Uh, no. I was talking about ARG. I only said that SurveyUSA was an outlier. No more. No less. ARG was both an outlier and had poor methodology. Leaving SurveyUSA as an outlier and thus, as is normal with outlier, appropriate to ignore.

You have been doing that all day with KindaSimple, Balderdash, mildly with Free Soviets and now me. Look in the mirror. Look at your debating style and quit trying to suggest that you are somehow above all that.

Uh-huh. So I had no debate only insults? I showed that you re-entered the threads with nothing but insults. In those threads I was caustic WHILE debating. I know you don't know the difference. You'd have to recognize debate first. You'll notice that KSP admitted his error. He admitted defeat. Balderdash changes his claims like underwear. And Free Soviets and I are having fun. FS will let you know when he thinks you're more credible than I. I suspect that will never happen.

I'm not above insults. Hell, some people downright deserve them. But I'm not beneath debating. Every thread, every discussion I enter I contribute to the debate. You avoid it like the plague. You entered two threads with attacks and nothing else. I quoted you and you called it a cheap shot.


See.....you are addicted to the cheap shot. Get over yourself man.

See above.

You are on a roll.....why stop????

You should be "embarrassed" indeed.

Amusing. Quoting you only attacking posters and offering nothing more to the debate. Golly, how dare I expose you. I'll try not to present your posts as evidence of your posts in the future. Sorry about my addiction to evidence and attempting to find the truth.

Wrong poll. Go back, re-read. Then pretend it never happened just like every time you make a stupid mistake like this.

Cheap shot. How dare you quote him and show where he's wrong. Stick to "gut feelings" and just downright making crap up.

Well in todays poll there is another wide spread poll showing Clinton 57% and Obama 37%, or +20. Another outlier? :D

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

American Research Group, Inc (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)

And why is it unreliable? Well, thanks CTOAN for offering up the problem with the poll.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/

And, hey, Jocabia, stop including evidence with your snarky comments. Obviously, you never do that.

From the SurveyUSA poll:


Hey Corny.....isn't that where you are helping out team Obama? Keep up the good work!! :D

Actually no, that isn't where I am volunteering for Obama's campaign. Nice try though.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains

Ut oh:

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a dramatic reversal, an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll found that a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While Obama and Clinton are both sustaining dents and dings from their lengthy presidential fight, the former first lady is clearly suffering more. Democratic voters no longer see her as the party's strongest contender for the White House.

Clinton's electibility argument is on very shakey ground now. More people see Obama as the better of the two to beat McCain in the General Election.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains

Ut oh:



Clinton's electibility argument is on very shakey ground now. More people see Obama as the better of the two to beat McCain in the General Election.

Do you have any other polls that show this? Just one isn't enough to convince me on this, as nice as it would be.

Do you have any other polls that show this? Just one isn't enough to convince me on this, as nice as it would be.

There is just not enough polls done on this subject but judging by the other polls for the Democratic Nominee...

This is the part where we should see the spread begin to increase. It's just four days left. However, it actually looks like it's still closing. I'm changing my estimate on the split to 7.9. (See what I did there, CTOAN.)

The RCP average is down to 5.6% in Clinton's favor.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains

Ut oh:

Clinton's electibility argument is on very shakey ground now. More people see Obama as the better of the two to beat McCain in the General Election.
Never heard of Knowledge Networks, and their poll results are misleading?

It states that "a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.", yet at the bottom, we are given this info:

The survey of 1,844 adults was conducted April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.
So, is it a "clear majority of Democrats" or a clear majority of Dems + Repubs?

The poll isn't broken down by party line.

Never heard of Knowledge Networks, and their poll results are misleading?

It states that "a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.", yet at the bottom, we are given this info:


So, is it a "clear majority of Democrats" or a clear majority of Dems + Repubs?

The poll isn't broken down by party line.

Um, it would help if you looked at the poll and not just the article.

[ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
WIN1. Regardless of which candidate you would vote for, which one do you think would have the best chance
of winning the general election in 2008 to become president?
[RANDOMIZE]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 63 59 56 43
Barack Obama 14 21 33 56
John Edwards 19 17 10 -
Bill Richardson 2 1 - -
Joe Biden 1 0 - -
Chris Dodd 1 0 - -
Mike Gravel 0 0 0 -
Dennis Kucinich 0 0 0 -
Refused / Not Answered 1 1 1 1

Wave 4 is the current poll that is discussed in the article. So they asked only democratic voters this question an 56% to 43% is a clear majority.

Um, it would help if you looked at the poll and not just the article.

[ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
WIN1. Regardless of which candidate you would vote for, which one do you think would have the best chance
of winning the general election in 2008 to become president?
[RANDOMIZE]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 63 59 56 43
Barack Obama 14 21 33 56
John Edwards 19 17 10 -
Bill Richardson 2 1 - -
Joe Biden 1 0 - -
Chris Dodd 1 0 - -
Mike Gravel 0 0 0 -
Dennis Kucinich 0 0 0 -
Refused / Not Answered 1 1 1 1

Wave 4 is the current poll that is discussed in the article. So they asked only democratic voters this question an 56% to 43% is a clear majority.

Good job on this Joc. You know he'll ignore this and move onto something far more inane. Something about Corny would seem likely.

Never heard of Knowledge Networks, and their poll results are misleading?

It states that "a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.", yet at the bottom, we are given this info:


So, is it a "clear majority of Democrats" or a clear majority of Dems + Repubs?

The poll isn't broken down by party line.

You really really need to read things more clearly.

Um, it would help if you looked at the poll and not just the article.

[ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
WIN1. Regardless of which candidate you would vote for, which one do you think would have the best chance
of winning the general election in 2008 to become president?
[RANDOMIZE]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 63 59 56 43
Barack Obama 14 21 33 56
John Edwards 19 17 10 -
Bill Richardson 2 1 - -
Joe Biden 1 0 - -
Chris Dodd 1 0 - -
Mike Gravel 0 0 0 -
Dennis Kucinich 0 0 0 -
Refused / Not Answered 1 1 1 1

Wave 4 is the current poll that is discussed in the article. So they asked only democratic voters this question an 56% to 43% is a clear majority.
However, the interesting part is WHO they would vote for:

ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
VOTDEM. If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucuses in your state were being held today and these were the candidates, for whom would you vote?

[RANDOMIZE, DON’T KNOW IS ALWAYS LAST]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 47 46 49 49
Barack Obama 23 25 29 39


Also of interest:

[ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
WIN6. Do you think Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, or should she continue her campaign?

Drop out 25
Continue her campaign 74

More interesting stuff:

VOT3A. If the 2008 general election for President were being held today and these were the candidates, would you vote for…
[RANDOMIZE THE FIRST TWO]
Hillary Clinton, the Democrat 36
John McCain, the Republican 37

Barack Obama, the Democrat 34
John McCain, the Republican 36

ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT

The bolded part is also very telling

The bolded part is also very telling
Yeah......and what is so "telling" about it?

Yeah......and what is so "telling" about it?

The fact that they asked those who weren't democrat and who probably did not vote in the democratic primaries/caucuses in their respective states!

BTW: what happened to Clinton's lead in PA? Her average is down to 5.6%. In NC, he's up by 14+ and Clinton's lead in Indiana has dropped to 2.2%. Those numbers will not win her the nomination. Not even close.

You really really need to read things more clearly.

However, the interesting part is WHO they would vote for:

ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
VOTDEM. If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucuses in your state were being held today and these were the candidates, for whom would you vote?

[RANDOMIZE, DON’T KNOW IS ALWAYS LAST]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 47 46 49 49
Barack Obama 23 25 29 39


Also of interest:

[ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
WIN6. Do you think Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, or should she continue her campaign?

Drop out 25
Continue her campaign 74

More interesting stuff:

VOT3A. If the 2008 general election for President were being held today and these were the candidates, would you vote for…
[RANDOMIZE THE FIRST TWO]
Hillary Clinton, the Democrat 36
John McCain, the Republican 37

Barack Obama, the Democrat 34
John McCain, the Republican 36

The bolded part is also very telling

Yeah......and what is so "telling" about it?

The fact that they asked those who weren't democrat and who probably did not vote in the democratic primaries/caucuses in their respective states!
And you think I need to "read things more clearly"? :p

Clearly you read that wrong and your "fact" is truly not a fact.

BTW: what happened to Clinton's lead in PA? Her average is down to 5.6%. In NC, he's up by 14+ and Clinton's lead in Indiana has dropped to 2.2%. Those numbers will not win her the nomination. Not even close.
RCP is just an average. Included in that average is a Clinton +14. We shall see which polling firm was closer to the mark by next Tuesday? I believe it will be a double digit win for Hillary.

RCP is just an average. Included in that average is a Clinton +14. We shall see which polling firm was closer to the mark by next Tuesday? I believe it will be a double digit win for Hillary.

From SurveyUSA while Ras and Zogby have it at 3 and 4% respectively. Also, PPP has Clinton up by 4%. LATimes/Bloomberg has her up by 5%. Pardon me while I toss out SurveyUSA for it seems to me to be well off base.

And you think I need to "read things more clearly"? :p

Clearly you read that wrong and your "fact" is truly not a fact.

And here's another question: how do we know they only asked those who voted in the Democratic Primary. Seems to me you do tend to ignore the most obvious of questions.

And I guess you didn't read the entire poll:

LV4A: 48% said they were sure that they voted in the 2008 primary/caucus while 30% said they didn't vote in the Primary/caucus

EDIT: WIN4 is very very telling! 55% responded that the Candidate who wins the most votes in the Primaries/Caucuses should be the nominee compared to 44% who said the candidate they feel best to win in November.

WIN5: 66% said that Office holders should decide based on national vote instead of district vote which was at 44%

And here's another question: how do we know they only asked those who voted in the Democratic Primary. Seems to me you do tend to ignore the most obvious of questions.
Now you are making up shit....and trying to avoid the obvious mistake you made.

ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
VOTDEM. If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucuses in your state were being held today and these were the candidates, for whom would you vote?

[RANDOMIZE, DON’T KNOW IS ALWAYS LAST]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 47 46 49 49
Barack Obama 23 25 29 39

Now you are making up shit....and trying to avoid the obvious mistake you made.

ASK IF DEMOCRAT OR NON-DEMOCRAT WHO HAS VOTED OR LIKELY TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS]
VOTDEM. If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucuses in your state were being held today and these were the candidates, for whom would you vote?

[RANDOMIZE, DON’T KNOW IS ALWAYS LAST]
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4
Hillary Clinton 47 46 49 49
Barack Obama 23 25 29 39

Very good. you can actually read. Now go and look at what else I posted.

*snip*

Wrong thread.

From SurveyUSA while Ras and Zogby have it at 3 and 4% respectively. Also, PPP has Clinton up by 4%. LATimes/Bloomberg has her up by 5%. Pardon me while I toss out SurveyUSA for it seems to me to be well off base.
How well does Rasmussen (22nd), Zogby (15th), LATimes/Bloomberg (19th), and PPP (22nd) stack up against SurveyUSA (#1)?

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hi-level-median-error-through-022008.JPG

Thanks to link (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/) from Jocabia.

As I said, excuse me while I distrust their numbers based off of all the other poll data that is out there in regards to PA that have this race under 10 points which is actually what Franklin and Marshall (2 blocks from where I live) has. A 6 point CLinton edge.

Oh and you have it down as 2/20/2008. This is April and we have had a few more contests since Feb. 20.

RCP is just an average. Included in that average is a Clinton +14. We shall see which polling firm was closer to the mark by next Tuesday? I believe it will be a double digit win for Hillary.

Remember when you asked me to find an example of your selective evidence. *ahem*

How well does Rasmussen (22nd), Zogby (15th), LATimes/Bloomberg (19th), and PPP (22nd) stack up against SurveyUSA (#1)?

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hi-level-median-error-through-022008.JPG

Thanks to link (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/) from Jocabia.

Heh. So NOW SurveyUSA is the most reliable. Hmmm... interesting how that changes based on who they agree with. A little bit ago, they were suspect.

What's important here is that the more samplings you have in statistics the more likely you are to get an accurate result. That's why RCP averages and that's why RCP tends to get a pretty good result.

Meanwhile, do you know who generated the report card? SurveyUSA. I think I might question someone ranking THEMSELVES number one. So would you if it didn't happen to agree with you. But, as usual, no matter how suspect, if it agrees with you, well, then...

Heh. So NOW SurveyUSA is the most reliable. Hmmm... interesting how that changes based on who they agree with. A little bit ago, they were suspect.
I never said that SurveyUSA was most reliable.....I was just going by the link you posted. :D

The fact that they have Hillary +14 is just a bonus.

What's important here is that the more samplings you have in statistics the more likely you are to get an accurate result. That's why RCP averages and that's why RCP tends to get a pretty good result.
That all depends now on which polls RCP decides to include in their averages, and we must keep in mind that RCP is not scientific and if it includes several suspect polls, then their average will be suspect?

Meanwhile, do you know who generated the report card? SurveyUSA. I think I might question someone ranking THEMSELVES number one. So would you if it didn't happen to agree with you. But, as usual, no matter how suspect, if it agrees with you, well, then...
Of course it is questionable when a polling firm ranks themselves first among other polling firms, but hey, you did include the link and unless you have compelling evidence that they reported their data incorrectly, we have to accept them somewhat at face value?

Remember when you asked me to find an example of your selective evidence. *ahem*
Nice try....I never claimed that as my "evidence".

BTW, here is where you defend SurveyUSA as your "evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510064&postcount=1471)".

And I can see why a poll that conducted interviews of 30,000 people is suspect when you'd prefer to argue with "nuh-uh", but they've got 30,000 more bits of evidence than you have. Debunk their methodology or the poll is the best evidence we have and your lame "Obama can't win" argument flies out the window.

Very good. you can actually read. Now go and look at what else I posted.
Never mind the sarcasm. You got caught with your pants down. The rest of what you posted is irrelevant to the discourse.

I never said that SurveyUSA was most reliable.....I was just going by the link you posted. :D

The fact that they have Hillary +14 is just a bonus.

Like I said, you tend to attempt to draw things from evidence you can't really get. There is not flaw in their methodology that would suggest they would be wrong to rank ARG in the lower third. There's an obvious conflict of interest in putting themselves in their own ratings, however.

Be as intellectually dishonest as you like, but we can all see what you're doing and it's laughable.


That all depends now on which polls RCP decides to include in their averages, and we must keep in mind that RCP is not scientific and if it includes several suspect polls, then their average will be suspect?

Again, if you find a poll suspect give your reasons. So far, the only reason you've EVER given for why you think a poll is suspect is because you didn't like the outcome in several cases and in the most recent case because you didn't read it.

Of course it is questionable when a polling firm ranks themselves first among other polling firms, but hey, you did include the link and unless you have compelling evidence that they reported their data incorrectly, we have to accept them somewhat at face value?

Um, no, we don't. You should never take evidence at face value. That's the problem. Every time anyone posts evidence I look it over to see if it's reliable and what it's reliable for. I do that whether it agrees with me or not. Every time. You call anything suspect you don't like the results for and as of yet have never given a single reason that was even remotely supported by evidence.

For the first SurveyUSA poll, you said it was suspect because you didn't think some of the states were right. Not because they'd done anything wrong, because you don't even understand methodology, but because you didn't like the outcome.

This last poll, you claimed they were being misleading by saying democratic voters when they didn't delineate, and I showed you in their methodology that the question they said was about democratic voters, was actually *gasp* about democratic voters.

We continually demonstrate that you don't know what an outlier is. You don't know what flawed methodology is. You don't know what it takes to analyze data and incorporate it into an argument. Which is fine. But at least admit it. The alternate is the laughable argument you've made for two months.

Nice try....I never claimed that as my "evidence"

Ha. This is why people call you intellectually dishonest. Because when you get caught saying silly things you try to play word games. "It wasn't 'evidence', it was just something that agreed with me. And it wasn't a 'claim', it was prediction." My little friend, you're not even fooling you.

BTW, here is where you defend SurveyUSA as your "evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510064&postcount=1471)".

I defended THAT survey. Yup. Not everything SurveyUSA has ever done, but that survey, because I'd reviewed the methodology. You seem to fail here. I've also defended you here. And Corny. Does that mean I think you've never made a mistake or done something that was unethical, like rating yourself number one in a ranking of polling organizations?

The rest of what you posted is irrelevant to the discourse.

Ahh...the CH manuever. When confronted with facts that disagree with you, ignore it and label it irrelevent.

Of course it is questionable when a polling firm ranks themselves first among other polling firms, but hey, you did include the link and unless you have compelling evidence that they reported their data incorrectly, we have to accept them somewhat at face value?

Since you put a question mark there, I will answer your question. Yes, face value. Face value includes your remark about them being questionable. It's a conflict of interest and, as such, that result is questionable. Every other one of those pollers are being audited by another firm and given rankings. Unless there methodology is bad, which you haven't shown, nor have I, then their rankings are reliable. However, since it's not another firm auditing SurveyUSA, we HAVE to throw out that result as questionable, for the very reason you gave.

Anything else you need me to explain, just put another question mark. I'm happy to help.

Ahh...the CH manuever. When confronted with facts that disagree with you, ignore it and label it irrelevent.
The "facts" did not disagree with me or what we were discussing and were therefore extraneous and irrelevant.

It appears that you are the one trying to maneuver around your obvious faux pas.

BTW, I bolded two words that you might want to learn how to spell correctly. :D

Sorry Liuzzo, I am guilty again of waiting too long to respond to your post of April 7th (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13590866&postcount=3287), which was:

Gallup tracking poll has Obama back up to his all time high of 3/29 (I quoted this earlier and CH called it outdated). Now it's current CH. Don't wait too long to respond like last time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx
The latest Gallup poll has Clinton +1 on Obama, and +2 on McCain, and also has Obama only +1 on McCain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

Note: marking the first time Obama has not led Clinton in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20. :D

The "facts" did not disagree with me or what we were discussing and were therefore extraneous and irrelevant.

It appears that you are the one trying to maneuver around your obvious faux pas.

BTW, I bolded two words that you might want to learn how to spell correctly. :D

Ah, spelling errors. The last bastion of someone who knows he's losing.

Sorry Liuzzo, I am guilty again of waiting too long to respond to your post of April 7th (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13590866&postcount=3287), which was:


The latest Gallup poll has Clinton +1 on Obama, and +2 on McCain, and also has Obama only +1 on McCain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

Note: marking the first time Obama has not led Clinton in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20. :D

It really doesn't matter. She's done. It really doesn't matter if she rises a couple of points, she's still not showing enough of a margin to overturn the votes of the people, no matter how badly you'd like for them to do so.

Sorry Liuzzo, I am guilty again of waiting too long to respond to your post of April 7th (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13590866&postcount=3287), which was:


The latest Gallup poll has Clinton +1 on Obama, and +2 on McCain, and also has Obama only +1 on McCain.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx

Note: marking the first time Obama has not led Clinton in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20. :D

Actually, this is false. This morning's gallup had Obama up 2 over the three day tracking period, and Zogby tracking had the gap closing in Penn. Our math suggests Obama was up by about 6 in yesterday's interviews.

The "facts" did not disagree with me or what we were discussing and were therefore extraneous and irrelevant.

Look at the Poll Data CH! The polls I showed are totally relevent as it contradicts what you want things to happen. It shows that the people disagree with what you want them to do.

It appears that you are the one trying to maneuver around your obvious faux pas.

I'm not the one overlooking poll data that disagrees with me.

BTW, I bolded two words that you might want to learn how to spell correctly. :D

Oh brother :rolleyes: You really are desperate aren't you?

I believe it will be a double digit win for Hillary.
If your prediction is wrong, will you shut up? Or at least say "I was wrong"?

It appears that Clinton's lead in PA is collapsing with just two days left. I wonder what she's got left in that bag of hers, because it's time for some tricks.

If PA is even remotely close, you can expect big shifts in IN and NC as result of the realization that she's not going to win. They're already moving in Obama's direction. All of the latest polls are very much favoring Obama.

The next two days should be interesting. I expect she's got something left she's saving for a moment when it's too late for Obama to deal with the accusations, much like happened in Ohio.

If your prediction is wrong, will you shut up? Or at least say "I was wrong"?

Remember that its his opinion and according to him, opinions cannot be wrong.

Remember that its his opinion and according to him, opinions cannot be wrong.
Where in God's name did I ever state that opinions cannot be wrong?

Ah, spelling errors. The last bastion of someone who knows he's losing.
Ummm that had nothing to do with the debate at hand. It was just a gotcha on Corny.

Ummm that had nothing to do with the debate at hand. It was just a gotcha on Corny.

even though your so called gotcha turned out to be mud on your face?

Look at the Poll Data CH! The polls I showed are totally relevent as it contradicts what you want things to happen. It shows that the people disagree with what you want them to do.
Seriously you do have a problem making a connection with the flow of the argument. The extra points you tacked on were totally irrelevant.

BTW, not only your spelling sucks but so does your grammar. Those last two sentences do not make sense at all.

I'm not the one overlooking poll data that disagrees with me.
What you are doing is inserting poll data that does not support your argument by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh brother :rolleyes: You really are desperate aren't you?
I guess you were desperate when you tried to tell someone that they shouldn't start a sentence with a number (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13593307&postcount=3316), even though your advice was wrong?

Never start a sentence with a number.
The only reason that I brought any of this to your attention was due to the fact you tried to dictate proper grammar to another poster even though your grammar and spelling is atrocious.

even though your so called gotcha turned out to be mud on your face?
Perhaps that is your take on the matter......it certainly is not mine.

*SNIP*

Done with the rant or are you finally going to acknowledge that the people want the superdelegates to vote for the popular vote winner as the poll we are arguing about right now indicates?

BTW: Latest Zogby poll has her up by 6 and Strategic Vision has her up by 7. That brings the RCP average down to 5.3!

Done with the rant or are you finally going to acknowledge that the people want the superdelegates to vote for the popular vote winner as the poll we are arguing about right now indicates?
As I stated, you clearly have lost track of the argument. Go back to post 104 where you tell me that I "really really need to read things more clearly.", then follow up with post # 105.

This has zero to do with superdelegates. None....nada.....zip.

However, while we are on that subject (superdelegates), an interesting poll from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730):

Suppose it is left to the party leaders and elected officials known as the super delegates to decide whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. In which of the following ways would you MOST like to see them make their choice? Should the super delegates…(READ)
BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Total Clinton Obama

38 35 39 Choose the candidate who won the biggest share of the POPULAR VOTE in primaries and caucuses across the country, or

12 7 16 Choose the candidate who won the most DELEGATES in the primaries and caucuses, or

46 54 41 Choose the candidate who is BEST QUALIFIED to be the nominee in their judgment?

4 4 4 Don't know
100 100 100
In other words, 46% believe that the supers should pick the most qualified, 38% believe that they should back the candidate with the biggest share of the popular vote and only 12% believe they should back the candidate who won the most delegates.

Interesting indeed!!

In other words, 46% believe that the supers should pick the most qualified, 38% believe that they should back the candidate with the biggest share of the popular vote and only 12% believe they should back the candidate who won the most delegates.

Interesting indeed!!

Yes, it is interesting. I'm not sure what your point is, though, seeing as Obama qualifies on all three possible methods..

As I stated, you clearly have lost track of the argument. Go back to post 104 where you tell me that I "really really need to read things more clearly.", then follow up with post # 105.

This has zero to do with superdelegates. None....nada.....zip.

However, while we are on that subject (superdelegates), an interesting poll from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730):


In other words, 46% believe that the supers should pick the most qualified, 38% believe that they should back the candidate with the biggest share of the popular vote and only 12% believe they should back the candidate who won the most delegates.

Interesting indeed!!

I find it amusing that you've been crying about the votes in two states not mattering in the outcome, but you constantly talk about how you'd like to see none of the votes matter. It's quite consistent with your candidate who could care less about the people she's supposed to represent.

Regardless, Obama is looking to finish within a hundred delegates. She's not going to win. It's simply not going to happen. And all evidence suggests you're not going to get your blowout. It's also quite obvious the only upcoming blowout is going to be Obama's. You lost. The milk is spilt.

The first post is funny, but Obama will win. McCain will just keep America in a endless war in Iraq (Which is not improving, have you seen the recent violence?) and it will be another Bush term

As I stated, you clearly have lost track of the argument. Go back to post 104 where you tell me that I "really really need to read things more clearly.", then follow up with post # 105.

This has zero to do with superdelegates. None....nada.....zip.

However, while we are on that subject (superdelegates), an interesting poll from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/132730):

Poll D2/D2A:

Who would you MOST like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year...Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? (Choice Rotated)

BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS:

Obama 54
Clinton 35
Undecided 11

What I truly find funny about this poll (the one quoted above) is that Obama defeats Clinton in all but one category.

Now let us look at your poll. Taken together, more people want the popular vote/delegate leader to be the president regardless of who it is. Combined, their number is exactly 50% with 4% undecided. Not exactly what I would call majority support for what you want the delegates to do.

The funny thing is, this poll seems to be wrapped around Al Gore as well. In fact, most people would want him as the nominee if neither Billary nor Barack have enough delegates:

Supposed that when the party's national convention starts this summer, neither Obama nor Clinton has enough delegate support to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Do you think the Democratic Party should consider nominating Al Gore to try to unite the party and break the delegate deadlock, or not?

BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Yes,should: 49%
No, should not 43%
Don't know: 8%

In other words, 46% believe that the supers should pick the most qualified, 38% believe that they should back the candidate with the biggest share of the popular vote and only 12% believe they should back the candidate who won the most delegates.

Interesting indeed!!

In other words, you can't add.

The first post is funny, but Obama will win. McCain will just keep America in a endless war in Iraq (Which is not improving, have you seen the recent violence?) and it will be another Bush term

I love it when people take candidates words out of context.

I love it when people take candidates words out of context.
It's a whole lot easier than trying to figure out what they plan on doing when they get into office...that's necessarily different that what they say they will do.

Hoping for change we can believe in is hardly a campaign promise.

Hoping for change we can believe in is hardly a campaign promise.

Then maybe you should...you know...research policies?

Then maybe you should...you know...research policies?
That's how I found out about Obama's tendency to lie. One place he says he won't raise taxes on those with incomes of $200,000 per year or less, then he turns around and says he'll raise capital gains taxes. When pressed, he gives one of his glib and evasive answers.

Even a bad candidate, who's moves and motives you can predict, is better than a glib and evasive one.

Voting in America is the ultimate opiate of the masses, every four years you deaden the pain.

That's how I found out about Obama's tendency to lie. One place he says he won't raise taxes on those with incomes of $200,000 per year or less, then he turns around and says he'll raise capital gains taxes. When pressed, he gives one of his glib and evasive answers.

WOW! You really are paranoid aren't you? You do realize there is a difference between income tax and capital gains tax right?

Poll D2/D2A:

Who would you MOST like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year...Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? (Choice Rotated)

BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS:

Obama 54
Clinton 35
Undecided 11

What I truly find funny about this poll (the one quoted above) is that Obama defeats Clinton in all but one category.
Nothing funny about it. Actually, the poll is weighted to favour Obama.

Now let us look at your poll. Taken together, more people want the popular vote/delegate leader to be the president regardless of who it is. Combined, their number is exactly 50% with 4% undecided. Not exactly what I would call majority support for what you want the delegates to do.
That is also not exactly majority support for what most of the Obama supporters here want the supers to do. Do you even know what I would like the supers to do?

The funny thing is, this poll seems to be wrapped around Al Gore as well. In fact, most people would want him as the nominee if neither Billary nor Barack have enough delegates:

Supposed that when the party's national convention starts this summer, neither Obama nor Clinton has enough delegate support to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Do you think the Democratic Party should consider nominating Al Gore to try to unite the party and break the delegate deadlock, or not?

BASED ON REGISTERED DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Yes,should: 49%
No, should not 43%
Don't know: 8%
Yes, that is most interesting indeed. Actually, it is mind boggling.

In other words, you can't add.
What is your point?

Yes, it is interesting. I'm not sure what your point is, though, seeing as Obama qualifies on all three possible methods..
The point is that 46% of respondents want the supers to exercize their "democratic" right to choose. This flies in the face of people such as Nancy Pelosi (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/16/pelosi-superdelegates-may-do-damage/)et al who want the supers to back the candidate with the most delegates:

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
That advice is just totally wrong, and points to another flaw in the "democratic" thinking of the Democratic party.

The point is that 46% of respondents want the supers to exercize their "democratic" right to choose. This flies in the face of people such as Nancy Pelosi (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/16/pelosi-superdelegates-may-do-damage/)et al who want the supers to back the candidate with the most delegates:


That advice is just totally wrong, and points to another flaw in the "democratic" thinking of the Democratic party.

Sorry but 50% (which is greater than 46%) feel that the candidate ahead in the popular vote/delegate count should be the nominee. OOPS!! Why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good argument.

That advice is just totally wrong, and points to another flaw in the "democratic" thinking of the Democratic party.

Oh yea....totally wrong to ignore the will of the people. We all know you don't give a fuck for it.

I find it amusing that you've been crying about the votes in two states not mattering in the outcome, but you constantly talk about how you'd like to see none of the votes matter. It's quite consistent with your candidate who could care less about the people she's supposed to represent.
Where did I say that I would "like to see none of the votes matter"? I didn't say that at all. All the votes matter and the fact that Michigan and Florida votes don't "matter" represents a serious problem for the Democratic Party. By the same token, superdelegates each have a vote and according to the rules, they are allowed to vote for whatever candidate they choose.

You appear to want to break that rule by suggesting that the superdelegates should respect the "will" of the other delegates and vote for the candidate with the most delegates.

You have been going on and on about the rules and yet when it comes down to the end game, you want to alter the rules to suit your "will". That makes you a hypocrite.

Regardless, Obama is looking to finish within a hundred delegates. She's not going to win. It's simply not going to happen. And all evidence suggests you're not going to get your blowout. It's also quite obvious the only upcoming blowout is going to be Obama's. You lost. The milk is spilt.
The die is not yet cast. The writing may be on the wall, but that is why there are erasers.

The real losers in this whole process are the people of America and especially those members of the so called "democratic" party.

The real losers in this whole process are the people of America and especially those members of the so called "democratic" party.

The only "loser" is Hillary Clinton. She's down and out and the only mathematical way of her winning this thing is for the Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people (that is THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTORATE).

Oh yea....totally wrong to ignore the will of the people. We all know you don't give a fuck for it.
Yet you are quite comfortable to suggest that the people of Florida and Michigan, which represents 19,000,000 people, don't deserve to express their "will" because their party leaders broke the rules.

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

Yet you are quite comfortable to suggest that the people of Florida and Michigan, which represents 19,000,000 people, don't deserve to express their "will" because their party leaders broke the rules.

Most definitely Michigan because Obama was not even on the ballot. Neither was Edwards. The only one of consequence was Clinton so yea. Michigan most definitely. As for Florida. You stated it yourself that they broke the rules but yet, you do not want to see the penalty enforced. You want them to ignore what they did. The only way that will happen is if this is settled before the convention. If it lasts until August, no. Neither should be seated because what both states did was illegal.

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

What is the point of a party who ignores the will of their very own electorate?

This morning's polls results:

PPP: O +3
SUSA: C+6
Q: C+7
Ras: C+5
Broken Z-Track: C+6
ARG!!!!: C+12

KSp's Penn Prediction? C+5-6
Final Delagate breakdowhn? Negligible difference. 2 - 4 in either direction. If Obama can get good turnout in Scranton and Reading, he wins the delegate race. If not, Clinton edges him out. Expecting race to go on to NC and Indiana, where Clinton will lose.

This morning's polls results:

PPP: O +3
SUSA: C+6
Q: C+7
Ras: C+5
Broken Z-Track: C+6
ARG!!!!: C+12

KSp's Penn Prediction? C+5-6
Final Delagate breakdowhn? Negligible difference. 2 - 4 in either direction. If Obama can get good turnout in Scranton and Reading, he wins the delegate race. If not, Clinton edges him out. Expecting race to go on to NC and Indiana, where Clinton will lose.

We can definitely throw out PPP and ARG.

On RCP: We have an average of 5.4 for Clinton.

In NC, Obama is up by 14+ points and she is up by 2.2 in Indiana.

WOW! You really are paranoid aren't you? You do realize there is a difference between income tax and capital gains tax right?

Did he say he wouldn't raise income taxes on people making less than $200,000, or that he wouln't raise taxes on people whose income is less than $200,000?

We can definitely throw out PPP and ARG.

On RCP: We have an average of 5.4 for Clinton.

In NC, Obama is up by 14+ points and she is up by 2.2 in Indiana.

1) Not sure about PPP. I haven't looked at their internals, but what I'm told is that they show what we should expect if turnout models reflect good Obama GOTV. Also, keep in mind, PPP hasn't missed yet. ARG we can throw out, though.

2) The RCP average will change when the new polls are added. I don't expect a large shift, though.

3) Without ARG, Indiana is much closer. I expect he will win both.

1) Not sure about PPP. I haven't looked at their internals, but what I'm told is that they show what we should expect if turnout models reflect good Obama GOTV. Also, keep in mind, PPP hasn't missed yet. ARG we can throw out, though.

Speaking of which. I probably should get down to HQ. I should do my part for the GOTV

2) The RCP average will change when the new polls are added. I don't expect a large shift, though.

Me either.

3) Without ARG, Indiana is much closer. I expect he will win both.

I hope so. That way, Clinton would be effectively knocked out.

Speaking of which. I probably should get down to HQ. I should do my part for the GOTV

Thank you. If I could afford it, I'd be out there, too.


I hope so. That way, Clinton would be effectively knocked out.

If the numbers we're hearing for her fundraising last month are correct, she might not even make it: she only made 8 mill for the primaries in March, while spending 22.2 mill.

Sorry but 50% (which is greater than 46%) feel that the candidate ahead in the popular vote/delegate count should be the nominee. OOPS!! Why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good argument.
You mean facts like there was 33% more Obama supporters surveyed than Clinton supporters?

The fact that 50% is not a clear majority?

The fact that 4% were undecided and that the margin of error is 3%?

The fact that 46% was the highest single percentage of the 3 choices.

Yeah, I did consider quite a few "facts".

What is the point of a party who ignores the will of their very own electorate?
The superdelegates will have to put one candidate or the other over the top because neither will have enough delegates.

The fact remains, is that you didn't answer my question, which was:

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

WOW! You really are paranoid aren't you? You do realize there is a difference between income tax and capital gains tax right?

I do know that. I don't think Obama realizes it. If you read the ABC transcript, you will find that he and Clinton took a pledge not to raise any taxes on those that make less that $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

You will also find that he talks about raising the cap gains taxes right afterward. Obama isn't presidential material.

I do know that. I don't think Obama realizes it. If you read the ABC transcript, you will find that he and Clinton took a pledge not to raise any taxes on those that make less that $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3

You will also find that he talks about raising the cap gains taxes right afterward. Obama isn't presidential material.

Yeah, that's a pretty reasonable conclusion. A couple verbal missteps should certainly rule out a candidate, due to his/her not being "presidential material." We'd better instead give the presidency to a guy who's completely clueless about the economy, completely backwards on social issues and civil liberties, and who went from being the Republican maverick to the George W. lapdog in just a few short years.

I can see the headlines now:

OBAMA SAYS "TAXES" BUT MEANS "INCOME TAXES": VOTERS APPALLED, AMERICA DOOMED

You will also find that he talks about raising the cap gains taxes right afterward. Obama isn't presidential material.

To be blunt, Myrmi, you are, quite possibly, the last person who one should trust to talk about politics. John McCain, who doesn't know anything about the economy, who wants to keep wasting my tax dollars in Iraq, who wants to waste my tax dollars in Iran, who is still stuck in Vietnam? That isn't presidential material.

Obama understands the difference between Cap. Gains and Income tax. That's a good thing. We've had too many years of idiots running our economy, letting their rich-ass budies get richer, and fucking the rest of us over.

To be blunt, Myrmi, you are, quite possibly, the last person who one should trust to talk about politics. John McCain, who doesn't know anything about the economy, who wants to keep wasting my tax dollars in Iraq, who wants to waste my tax dollars in Iran, who is still stuck in Vietnam? That isn't presidential material.

Big assumption there, pal, concerning my presidential preference. I don't think you can ever find that I've supported any candidate this year.

Obama understands the difference between Cap. Gains and Income tax. That's a good thing. We've had too many years of idiots running our economy, letting their rich-ass budies get richer, and fucking the rest of us over.
Yep, we should have some of those poor people ante up and start signing paychecks. If poor people were so smart, they would be the ones leading the economy. You live, presuming it's in the U.S., in the richest nation in the world. I can hardly see how you've been 'screwed over' by anyone.

The superdelegates will have to put one candidate or the other over the top because neither will have enough delegates.

DUH!!!!

The fact remains, is that you didn't answer my question, which was:

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

In which I replied with a question of my own. BTW: you never answered my question.

Where did I say that I would "like to see none of the votes matter"? I didn't say that at all. All the votes matter and the fact that Michigan and Florida votes don't "matter" represents a serious problem for the Democratic Party. By the same token, superdelegates each have a vote and according to the rules, they are allowed to vote for whatever candidate they choose.

If the Supers override the other votes, then they certainly don't matter, now do they. The supers are there to prevent a hijacking of the party, something no one is suggesting happened. Regardless, you've already lost. It will just take a bit for your pride to realize it. Hillary's done. We all know it.

Who is changing the rules? Am I saying the leaders of the Dems should require them to follow the will of the people? Nope. I'm suggesting it's in their interest to do so.


You appear to want to break that rule by suggesting that the superdelegates should respect the "will" of the other delegates and vote for the candidate with the most delegates.

I'm not breaking any rule. It's amusing to me that you keep trying to pull that claim. The point of the Supers is to examine the arguments and make sure the party's interests are protected. Going against the will of the people is not in the interest of the party. Let's not pretend you don't know that.


You have been going on and on about the rules and yet when it comes down to the end game, you want to alter the rules to suit your "will". That makes you a hypocrite.

Again, keep tooting that horn. No one is altering the rules. The purpose of Supers is clear. It certainly isn't the disenfranchise all democrats without a good reason. But, why you should be consistent now? You worried about two states that were disenfranchised and upset about, but you give no care to the other 48 being equally disenfranchised, huh?



The die is not yet cast. The writing may be on the wall, but that is why there are erasers.

The real losers in this whole process are the people of America and especially those members of the so called "democratic" party.
Amusing. The hottest contest in decades has the world watching the democratic party and they lose? In what world? All of their laundry is being aired FAR too early for McCain. And even with no one attacking McCain, he can barely pull even. When the party unites, the Republicans are in trouble and they know it, which is why they're clinging to weak associations like Ayers. Look at all of them trying to help Hillary pull out the nomination. They want a candidate they can beat, and they're scared to death of Obama. And they should be.

*Snip CH championing SurveyUSA when Hillary is up by 18, according to them*

*Snip CH championing SurveyUSA when Hillary is up by 14, according to them*

*Snip CH championing SurveyUSA as the most reliable pollers when they have Hillary up by double digits*

*Snip CH completely silent when they have her only up by 6*

No joy in Mudville, huh, CH?

*Snip CH championing gallup when they finally have Hillary up by a point nationally*

*Snip CH completely silent now that she's down by about 7 nationally again according to gallup*

Yeah, none. Hehe.

Yeah, that's a pretty reasonable conclusion. A couple verbal missteps should certainly rule out a candidate, due to his/her not being "presidential material." We'd better instead give the presidency to a guy who's completely clueless about the economy, completely backwards on social issues and civil liberties, and who went from being the Republican maverick to the George W. lapdog in just a few short years.

I can see the headlines now:

OBAMA SAYS "TAXES" BUT MEANS "INCOME TAXES": VOTERS APPALLED, AMERICA DOOMED

OBAMA SAYS WATER IS WET: AMERICA SADDENED

I think it's funny that Obama saying he's not going to raise taxes meaning income taxes is scary, but John McCain wanting to lead a war where he can't keep the sides straight is of no concern.

I think it's funny that Obama saying he's not going to raise taxes meaning income taxes is scary, but John McCain wanting to lead a war where he can't keep the sides straight is of no concern.

You should see the latest smear campaign ad by Clinton. Its ripped right from Karl Rove and fully supported by her supporters though they condemned it when Rove used similar tactics.

I don't think you even understand - inflation isn't being "ignored" and the great increase in the incomes of the rich doesn't really effect the median income.

Lets say, for shits and giggles, we see the price of a gallon of gas in 1950 through today and median income from 1950 through today. Any guess which one grew by more?

I don't think you even understand - inflation isn't being "ignored" and the great increase in the incomes of the rich doesn't really effect the median income.

Lets say, for shits and giggles, we see the price of a gallon of gas in 1950 through today and median income from 1950 through today. Any guess which one grew by more?

Take it elsewhere. This is for poll discussions not economics.

Take it elsewhere. This is for poll discussions not economics.

Tell it to your fellow members of the Cult of Obama who (wrongly) insist that America's middle class is on a downward spiral.

Tell it to your fellow members of the Cult of Obama who (wrongly) insist that America's middle class is on a downward spiral.

I guess I'm part of this "cult" but I do not think. I'm asking everyone to move this discussion elsewhere.

You should see the latest smear campaign ad by Clinton. Its ripped right from Karl Rove and fully supported by her supporters though they condemned it when Rove used similar tactics.

Shes not fit to lick Rove's boots. Rove is a genius, his tactics worked. This tactic is just too unsubtle, heavy handed, and poorly done, and as you can see by comments about it, totally backfired.

It looks like I'll be as busy as I have been for the primary tomorrow. I'm going to stick by my @8% guess. Last minute folk tend to break Clinton, Obama has been on the defensive for a bit now. I don't know how much of the pop vote that will give her, but I'm thinking not enough.

It looks like I'll be as busy as I have been for the primary tomorrow. I'm going to stick by my @8% guess. Last minute folk tend to break Clinton, Obama has been on the defensive for a bit now. I don't know how much of the pop vote that will give her, but I'm thinking not enough.

I'm going with 7%. I've got you this time. Get ready to take it in the ear.

The economics stuff is (probably) going to get pruned into a separate thread as soon as I get home from a meeting tonight, unless some other mod happens by. This thread is for current election polls, number-crunching, etc.

I'm going with 7%. I've got you this time. Get ready to take it in the ear.

Well I say, 9%!

/Price is Right :D

Well I say, 9%!

/Price is Right :D
If you were playing you'd have said 8.1. But anywho, we both know you've lost. In which case, it's not flaming to say... loser. ;-) Hehe. I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

If you were playing you'd have said 8.1. But anywho, we both know you've lost. In which case, it's not flaming to say... loser. ;-) Hehe. I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

Ouch. Well, if I've lost, then so have Hillary's pollsters, since they're even more generous with their estimate of her margin of victory - at least if they really believe in the numbers they've leaked today. :p We shall see.

I have just pruned 42 posts about economics from this thread (EDIT: and replanted them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554939)). I went through 14 pages selecting them. Then I discovered I had been clicking MultiQuote when I should have been clicking Highlight Post. So I went through 14 pages again. That's 42 x 2 = 84 posts ABOUT ECONOMICS, a subject I have spent much of my life sedulously avoiding.

I am in a mood to turn people into toads.

Particularly people who spend time slagging each other off when they are ostensibly arguing about the content of the other's post.

Or people who contribute to the posting of a single graph four times on a page because they are too lazy to edit their quotes.

Or people who snark about spelling or grammar, or post one-liners, or gun, headbang or upyours smilies.

And, most especially, people who post unnecessarily about economics.

Therefore, kindly keep it on-topic and polite, or, I swear, you will be toaded.

Repeatedly.

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

What is the point of a party who ignores the will of their very own electorate?

The fact remains, is that you didn't answer my question, which was:

What is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, if they are just there to rubber stamp the delegate selection process?

In which I replied with a question of my own. BTW: you never answered my question.
So you avoid answering the question directly by asking another question, and then you have the audacity to tell me that I didn't answer your question.

Amazing!!

or, I swear, you will be toaded.

Repeatedly.

You say that like it's a bad thing. You get to chill on a lilly pad, take swims, and hot chicks kiss you now and then to check if you're a prince or not.

If you were playing you'd have said 8.1. But anywho, we both know you've lost. In which case, it's not flaming to say... loser. ;-) Hehe. I'm looking forward to tomorrow.

I'm going to be brave and call 6%. Possibly 6.5.

I have just pruned 42 posts about economics from this thread (EDIT: and replanted them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554939)). I went through 14 pages selecting them. Then I discovered I had been clicking MultiQuote when I should have been clicking Highlight Post. So I went through 14 pages again. That's 42 x 2 = 84 posts ABOUT ECONOMICS, a subject I have spent much of my life sedulously avoiding.

I am in a mood to turn people into toads.

Particularly people who spend time slagging each other off when they are ostensibly arguing about the content of the other's post.

Or people who contribute to the posting of a single graph four times on a page because they are too lazy to edit their quotes.

Or people who snark about spelling or grammar, or post one-liners, or gun, headbang or upyours smilies.

And, most especially, people who post unnecessarily about economics.

Therefore, kindly keep it on-topic and polite, or, I swear, you will be toaded.

Repeatedly.

Oh, if we're going to make the time frame longer (I'll notice that you're not denying that what Say is true for the last twenty year) let's complicate things. Let's include the price of bread, the price of meat, the price of corn, the price of electricy, the price of home, and the price of gas. You're contending that the accepted norm is incorrect. Let's see it. I'll wait.

Let's see your argument. (keep in mind, that i'm going to compare growth during democrat democrat dominated govermentents.) How you think you're gonna fair? This should be wonderful to watch. Come on, stoogy.

You missed one.

So you avoid answering the question directly by asking another question, and then you have the audacity to tell me that I didn't answer your question.

Amazing!!

Well you didn't so yea I do have the audacity because some of us have actually...you know...studied this!

So are you ready to answer my question or what?

Well you didn't so yea I do have the audacity because some of us have actually...you know...studied this!
You studied about this and you don't know the answer? Why am I not surprised?

So are you ready to answer my question or what?
There is no answer to your question, given the fact that it is rhetorical BS.

Here is one guys take on tonights vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/why_pennsylvania_matters.html):

Here is a quick guide to sort through the inevitable post-PA spin.

--Obama wins: Race is totally over.

--Clinton wins by 5 or less: Race is effectively over.

--Clinton wins by 6-9: Status quo, which favors the front runner Obama, particularly as the clock winds down.

--Clinton wins by 10-13: Clinton remains the underdog, but her odds of being the nominee will be considerably higher than the conventional wisdom in the media.

--Clinton wins by 14+: Totally different race, as Clinton will be on a path to claim a popular vote win that will give her every bit as much of an argument as the legitimate "winner". In this scenario anything could ultimately happen, including neither Clinton nor Obama becoming the eventual nominee.

It's look like it'll end up about 10. A good win for her, but certainly doesn't actually change her position much. It's not the ender that Obama would have wanted, nor the landslide that she appeared to have.

You missed one.

Only because you ducked:

http://www.dragonflylanding.ca/images/lilypad.jpg

Only because you ducked:
[/IMG]

I live to serve.

This morning's polls results:

PPP: O +3
SUSA: C+6
Q: C+7
Ras: C+5
Broken Z-Track: C+6
ARG!!!!: C+12

KSp's Penn Prediction? C+5-6
Final Delagate breakdowhn? Negligible difference. 2 - 4 in either direction. If Obama can get good turnout in Scranton and Reading, he wins the delegate race. If not, Clinton edges him out. Expecting race to go on to NC and Indiana, where Clinton will lose.

We can definitely throw out PPP and ARG.

On RCP: We have an average of 5.4 for Clinton.

In NC, Obama is up by 14+ points and she is up by 2.2 in Indiana.
Here is the problem with believing that RCP is gospel. Throwing out PPP is a no brainer in that it was the only one suggesting an Obama win, yet your suggestion of throwing out ARG C +12 was wrong.

ARG was closer than any of the others that KSP listed.

CH? Insider Advantage was closer than ARG. Insider had her winning by 7 and ARG by 12. Clinton won by 9. Remember, the closest person to the actual retail price without going over, is the winner.

And now for a poll update from both N.C. and IN!

The RCP average out of N.C. has climbed to 15.5%. SurveyUSA has him up on Clinton by 9 points while PPP has him up by 25%. Insider Advantage has him at a +15 and the LATimes at +13.

In Indiana, Obama has a 3 point average which means he gained 4.8 points since the last average. Reasearch 2000 has him at a +1 while Indy Star/Selzer has a +3 and Downs Center +5.

Here is the problem with believing that RCP is gospel. Throwing out PPP is a no brainer in that it was the only one suggesting an Obama win, yet your suggestion of throwing out ARG C +12 was wrong.

ARG was closer than any of the others that KSP listed.

ARG has bad practices. It doesn't matter if I conduct an experiment that says that gravity exists, if my methodology is unscientific, it's not science. That I happen to be right has nothing to do with it.

ARG is unreliable. The RCP average was correct. Among the people who decided in the last day, Clinton had an excellent advantage, which would have driven the RCP average up by a couple of points. That means at the time they took the polls, the average was pretty much dead on.

I know you're not that good with methodology (no, I'm not making fun of you. Not everyone is gonna be a scientist.), so perhaps you should leave it to the people who really do get how statistics work.

I know you're not that good with methodology (no, I'm not making fun of you. Not everyone is gonna be a scientist.), so perhaps you should leave it to the people who really do get how statistics work.
Yeah right!!! :rolleyes:

Yeah right!!! :rolleyes:

Given your inability to notice that 7 is closer to 9 than 12 is closer to 9, he may be on to something.

CH? Insider Advantage was closer than ARG. Insider had her winning by 7 and ARG by 12. Clinton won by 9. Remember, the closest person to the actual retail price without going over, is the winner.
Clinton won by more than 9, and Insider Advantage was not on KSP's list, and this isn't the Price is Right. Therefore, ARG was the closest, and you were definitely wrong.

And now for a poll update from both N.C. and IN!

The RCP average out of N.C. has climbed to 15.5%. SurveyUSA has him up on Clinton by 9 points while PPP has him up by 25%. Insider Advantage has him at a +15 and the LATimes at +13.

In Indiana, Obama has a 3 point average which means he gained 4.8 points since the last average. Reasearch 2000 has him at a +1 while Indy Star/Selzer has a +3 and Downs Center +5.
Now it is Hillary's turn to catch up. I think she will get better numbers in NC and that she will win Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Yeah right!!! :rolleyes:

You base your estimation on who is good at polling based on comparing after the fact, not on methodology. That's wholly unscientific and absolutely valueless.

ARG had Obama tied on the 6th, he was never tied. They had him behind by 20% five days later. There finally poll was on the 21rst and had him behind by 16%. Not 12% as you're claiming. ARG was off my more than double the RCP average was off by. And considering we KNOW that undecideds favored Clinton, that means that on 21rst, RCP was and ARG was more than doubled.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/padem8-707.html

Clinton won by more than 9, and Insider Advantage was not on KSP's list, and this isn't the Price is Right. Therefore, ARG was the closest, and you were definitely wrong.

According, to ARG they were off by nearly 7 while RCP was at about 3. Now, I know you can get this one. Which is greater? 3 or 7?

By the way, if RCP would drop outliers, like we suggested, they would have been closer. Dropping the Obama +3 (which we all agreed was an outlier), would bring them up by about a point.

Also, just for you're info, SurveyUSA was one of the worst on the list for being close to the right number. They were within margin of error, but if we're going to judge them in hindsight, all of the ones you cited were among the furthest off.

Now it is Hillary's turn to catch up. I think she will get better numbers in NC and that she will win Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Yes, well, you were predicting a 15 point win in PA, claiming that Super Tuesday wasn't a shift of momentum (right before 11 straight wins by Obama) and questioning whether 18 points is an outlier from the RCP average. I'm waiting for the time you predict correctly, and I admit if you keep throwing things out there, you'll eventually get lucky, but forgive if I don't take your claims, predictions and suggestions very seriously.

The RCP average was correct.
It was in fact incorrect. RCP is an average of polls, and for them to be correct, they need to land on the exact number.

It was in fact incorrect. RCP is an average of polls, and for them to be correct, they need to land on the exact number.

Based on what? You're made up requirement? By all appearances, they were very close to what the the statistics were at the time of the last polls (the day before), before all the undecideds swung Clinton.

But, hey, nice job avoiding the point that ARG's last poll was 16 and they were WAAAAAAY off.

Amusingly, if they would drop outliers, as we suggested, they would have been even closer, and, in my educated opinion, more accurate.

By the by, how did your 15 point prediction turn out?

According, to ARG they were off by nearly 7 while RCP was at about 3. Now, I know you can get this one. Which is greater? 3 or 7?

By the way, if RCP would drop outliers, like we suggested, they would have been closer. Dropping the Obama +3 (which we all agreed was an outlier), would bring them up by about a point.

Also, just for you're info, SurveyUSA was one of the worst on the list for being close to the right number. They were within margin of error, but if we're going to judge them in hindsight, all of the ones you cited were among the furthest off.

Yes, well, you were predicting a 15 point win in PA, claiming that Super Tuesday wasn't a shift of momentum (right before 11 straight wins by Obama) and questioning whether 18 points is an outlier from the RCP average. I'm waiting for the time you predict correctly, and I admit if you keep throwing things out there, you'll eventually get lucky, but forgive if I don't take your claims, predictions and suggestions very seriously.
I love the way you go off in a tangent, throwing about bogus shit, when I disagree with you. Carry on.....I find it rather amusing. :D

Given your inability to notice that 7 is closer to 9 than 12 is closer to 9, he may be on to something.

Oh, no, dear, don't you see, everyone that was closer than ARG doesn't count for a plethora of made-up reasons.

IA doesn't count because they weren't listed on KSP's list.

The RCP average doesn't count, because an average doesn't have to be within it's margin of error, but rather it has to be exactly on the final result or it's wrong. Throwing out PPP would have driven them upwards, where the final result was, but we're wrong to suggest that we throw out outliers, despite the statistical need to so.

SurveyUSA counts because he likes their results, even though in his retroactive comparisons they were among the farthest off and were never closer than the RCP average ended up being.

And 7 is less than 2, dummy.

I love the way you go off in a tangent, throwing about bogus shit, when I disagree with you. Carry on.....I find it rather amusing. :D

Tangent? What is a tangent about the FACT that ARG's last poll had them at 16.

What is a tangent about the relevance of a statistical average?

What is a tangent about the FACT that you only agree with polls that favor Clinton regardless of their accuracy or relevance?

What is a tangent, when analyzing your predictions, about mentioning that both your results and your methodology have been wildly wrong in the past?

But continue to drop arguments. It's good debate.

Clinton won by more than 9, and Insider Advantage was not on KSP's list, and this isn't the Price is Right. Therefore, ARG was the closest, and you were definitely wrong.

Yea. You are right that she won by more than 9. It was 9.31 but why bother with schemantics?

Now it is Hillary's turn to catch up. I think she will get better numbers in NC and that she will win Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Well she is down by 3 points in Indiana so we shall see.

I love the way you go off in a tangent, throwing about bogus shit, when I disagree with you. Carry on.....I find it rather amusing. :D

I find it highly amusing the way you can hand-wave and assume no one else can read through the past page or so, and figure out just who is throwing bogus shit.

But continue to drop arguments. It's good debate.
Perhaps if you followed the debate that started with my comment to Corny about KSP's numbers, then you might be in the same ball park. Instead, you are all over the place making up shit and trying to bolster your own inflated ego.

That is what I mean by going off on a tangent.

I find it highly amusing the way you can hand-wave and assume no one else can read through the past page or so, and figure out just who is throwing bogus shit.

He's here to argue (poorly), not debate. Stop being silly and expecting him to address arguments.

I love the way you go off in a tangent, throwing about bogus shit, when I disagree with you. Carry on.....I find it rather amusing. :D

And we have the CH manuever again. When facts contradict your position, ignore it and call it amusing and a tangent.

I find it highly amusing the way you can hand-wave and assume no one else can read through the past page or so, and figure out just who is throwing bogus shit.
If my shit is bogus then you can try to prove it as such. Be my guest.

If my shit is bogus then you can try to prove it as such. Be my guest.

It already has been proven. Even CNN has an article questioning if she actually won by double digits or not. Actually...they came up with an answer. They're both right.

If my shit is bogus then you can try to prove it as such. Be my guest.

Better debaters than I have done so, numerous times. This thread, the other election threads, and their predecessor Megathread are testaments to that.

But since you insist, perhaps you'd care to explain which is closer: 7 and 9.3, or 9.3 and 16.

And we have the CH manuever again. When facts contradict your position, ignore it and call it amusing and a tangent.
You were wrong and now you are trying to cover it up. You are the king of maneuvering. :)

You were wrong and now you are trying to cover it up. You are the king of maneuvering. :)

I'm wrong? The margin of victory was 9.31 which any fool who went to a decent school would tell you that it rounds down to 9. Last time I went to school 9-6=3 while 16-9=7. Now I know you went to a Canadian school so maybe they do not teach basic subtraction up there but that is what is taught down here in America. (Before I get hammered for this, this is sarcasm).

Hillary needed a double digit blowout (meaning 20+ points) and didn't even win by 10%. Now tell me who is wrong?

You were wrong and now you are trying to cover it up. You are the king of maneuvering. :)

Repeating it does not make it so.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
I believe it will be a double digit win for Hillary.

If your prediction is wrong, will you shut up? Or at least say "I was wrong"?
I expected that he was going to "forget" that he had predicted a double-digit win. I didn't expect that he would actually try to claim that a double-digit win had occurred when it didn't.

Perhaps if you followed the debate that started with my comment to Corny about KSP's numbers, then you might be in the same ball park. Instead, you are all over the place making up shit and trying to bolster your own inflated ego.

That is what I mean by going off on a tangent.

Yes, but that one is settled. The FACT is that 9.31 is closer to 7 (Quinnipac) than it is to ARG. Thus, you're claim that ARG was closest is incorrect. More importantly, ARG changed their numbers to 16 right before the contest. Their last numbers were terrible, and that's not tangential. It speaks to the fact that they are all over the map. If they were EVER close, it was luck.

I'm wrong? The margin of victory was 9.31 which any fool who went to a decent school would tell you that it rounds down to 9. Last time I went to school 9-6=3 while 16-9=7. Now I know you went to a Canadian school so maybe they do not teach basic subtraction up there but that is what is taught down here in America. (Before I get hammered for this, this is sarcasm).

Hillary needed a double digit blowout (meaning 20+ points) and didn't even win by 10%. Now tell me who is wrong?

Just to clarify: double-digit means 10+ points. (i.e. a ten-digit and a one-digit. Anything from 10-99 is double-digit, in other words.)

Better debaters than I have done so, numerous times. This thread, the other election threads, and their predecessor Megathread are testaments to that.

But since you insist, perhaps you'd care to explain which is closer: 7 and 9.3, or 9.3 and 16.
There is your problem. Where did I claim 16? Nowhere. Jocabia threw that into the mix, along with some other bogus crap. You just followed along for the ride? Go back to and try again. Here is the reference point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

Repeating it does not make it so.

CH is acting like a coach I had not to long ago. His team lost 2-0 and complained up a storm and violated the sportsmanship policy of the organization. Seriously, CH has a logic problem. I guess they do not teach logic up there in Canada :D

Just to clarify: double-digit means 10+ points. (i.e. a ten-digit and a one-digit. Anything from 10-99 is double-digit, in other words.)

If ya noticed, I put a qualifier in there. I did say the word blowout (meaning 20+ points) followed by the rest of the statement.

I'm wrong? The margin of victory was 9.31 which any fool who went to a decent school would tell you that it rounds down to 9. Last time I went to school 9-6=3 while 16-9=7. Now I know you went to a Canadian school so maybe they do not teach basic subtraction up there but that is what is taught down here in America. (Before I get hammered for this, this is sarcasm).

Hillary needed a double digit blowout (meaning 20+ points) and didn't even win by 10%. Now tell me who is wrong?
Decent schools also teach reading and comprehension!! :eek:

Try again. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

You were wrong and now you are trying to cover it up. You are the king of maneuvering. :)

What specifically was he wrong about, again?

Decent schools also teach reading and comprehension!! :eek:

Try again. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

Which apparently, you lack.

There is your problem. Where did I claim 16? Nowhere. Jocabia threw that into the mix, along with some other bogus crap. You just followed along for the ride? Go back to and try again. Here is the reference point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

You claimed ARG was closer than any of the other pollsters listed. 16 was their final polling numbers.

Regardless, they claimed 12 in KSP's list and they were off by 2.7. Quinnipac, also on his list, claimed 7 which is off by 2.3. Quinnipac was closer, your claim was wrong.

Happy? No matter how you spin this, you were wrong and Corny was correct.

There is your problem. Where did I claim 16? Nowhere. Jocabia threw that into the mix, along with some other bogus crap. You just followed along for the ride? Go back to and try again. Here is the reference point:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

And it's been pointed out to you that ARG altered their prediction preceding the election, and that their final prediction was 16.

So then: let's say you're on a game show. You've got four answer choices, and you decide to go with a. When prompted, you quickly change your answer to d, then b, then back to d, but when asked for a final answer, you say c. It turns out that the answer really was a. Are you correct, because you initially picked a, even though your final answer was c and your answers were all over the place in the interim, or are you, in point of fact, wrong?

If ya noticed, I put a qualifier in there. I did say the word blowout (meaning 20+ points) followed by the rest of the statement.

Fair enough.

You claimed ARG was closer than any of the other pollsters listed. 16 was their final polling numbers.

Regardless, they claimed 12 in KSP's list and they were off by 2.7. Quinnipac, also on his list, claimed 7 which is off by 2.3. Quinnipac was closer, your claim was wrong.

Happy? No matter how you spin this, you were wrong and Corny was correct.

I knew my Government Degree will come in handy :D

I knew my Government Degree will come in handy :D

Well, given you're as all over the place as ARG, I'd say you got lucky as well. The only reason you lately tend to be right more often than CH is that you, for once, chose the right team.

Well, given you're as all over the place as ARG, I'd say you got lucky as well. The only reason you lately tend to be right more often than CH is that you, for once, chose the right team.

I figured this race was going to be single digits as election day neared and I was right in calling Lancaster for Obama. The one thing I'm learning about this race is to look at all the information pouring in and not cherry pick the information that I like from those that I do not like.

The information coming out of Indiana has it as a dead heat and I think that race will come down to the wire. North Carolina though is not going to be as close but I think it very well could be a double digit Obama victory. That could change as more information comes in from there.

In all, I actually thank you Jocabia and others for the constant supply of information since sometimes I cannot access due to the shortness of my time. :)

He's here to argue (poorly), not debate. Stop being silly and expecting him to address arguments.
Actually, it is you who wants to argue. I posted to Corny and you replied telling me how smart you were. Did you forget that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640918&postcount=167

Actually, it is you who wants to argue. I posted to Corny and you replied telling me how smart you were. Did you forget that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640918&postcount=167

You forget though that the RCP is an average of polls and its been explained to you countless times of some of the polls they used for their averages.

If you think this argument is going to succeed, you are sadly sadly mistaken.

This morning's polls results:

PPP: O +3
SUSA: C+6
Q: C+7
Ras: C+5
Broken Z-Track: C+6
ARG!!!!: C+12

KSp's Penn Prediction? C+5-6
Final Delagate breakdowhn? Negligible difference. 2 - 4 in either direction. If Obama can get good turnout in Scranton and Reading, he wins the delegate race. If not, Clinton edges him out. Expecting race to go on to NC and Indiana, where Clinton will lose.

For the record, this was from before the poll from ARG came out on Monday. As much as CH wants this to be a tangent, the proper numbers were

InsiderAdvantage 04/21 - 04/21 712 LV 49 42 Clinton +7.0
Zogby 04/20 - 04/21 675 LV 51 41 Clinton +10.0
Rasmussen 04/20 - 04/20 722 LV 49 44 Clinton +5.0
Suffolk 04/19 - 04/20 600 LV 52 42 Clinton +10.0
PPP (D) 04/19 - 04/20 2338 LV 46 49 Obama +3.0
Strategic Vision (R) 04/18 - 04/20 1200 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0
Quinnipiac 04/18 - 04/20 1027 LV 51 44 Clinton +7.0
SurveyUSA 04/18 - 04/20 710 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0
ARG: 4/20 - 4/21 600 LV 56 40 Clinton +16.0

Throwing out the PPP outlier and ARG because their methodology is unreliable, you get 7,10,5, 10,3, 7, 7, 6 which is 55/8 or 6.9. That was the average that we supported, including Corny, and with the shift of undecideds it was well within a reasonable margin of error.

Actually, it is you who wants to argue. I posted to Corny and you replied telling me how smart you were. Did you forget that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640918&postcount=167

Once again, you avoid the point.

Let's try again - which is closer 7 (Quinnipac) or 12 (ARG) to 9.3?

(I'll give you a hint. It's not ARG.)

Unlike most of your posts, you'll notice the linked post contains an argument, one you ignored.

For the record, this was from before the poll from ARG came out on Monday. As much as CH wants this to be a tangent, the proper numbers were

InsiderAdvantage 04/21 - 04/21 712 LV 49 42 Clinton +7.0
Zogby 04/20 - 04/21 675 LV 51 41 Clinton +10.0
Rasmussen 04/20 - 04/20 722 LV 49 44 Clinton +5.0
Suffolk 04/19 - 04/20 600 LV 52 42 Clinton +10.0
PPP (D) 04/19 - 04/20 2338 LV 46 49 Obama +3.0
Strategic Vision (R) 04/18 - 04/20 1200 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0
Quinnipiac 04/18 - 04/20 1027 LV 51 44 Clinton +7.0
SurveyUSA 04/18 - 04/20 710 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0
ARG: 4/20 - 4/21 600 LV 56 40 Clinton +16.0

Throwing out the PPP outlier and ARG because their methodology is unreliable, you get 7,10,5, 10,3, 7, 7, 6 which is 55/8 or 6.9. That was the average that we supported, including Corny, and with the shift of undecideds it was well within a reasonable margin of error.
The tangent comes from you not following the debate. Your attempt to justify your deviation is extremely poor.

And for the record, this is the last number that RCP had listed for ARG (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html):

ARG* 04/17 - 04/19 600 LV 54 41 Clinton +13.0

Here is one guys take on tonights vote (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/why_pennsylvania_matters.html):
Here is a quick guide to sort through the inevitable post-PA spin.

--Obama wins: Race is totally over.

--Clinton wins by 5 or less: Race is effectively over.

--Clinton wins by 6-9: Status quo, which favors the front runner Obama, particularly as the clock winds down.

--Clinton wins by 10-13: Clinton remains the underdog, but her odds of being the nominee will be considerably higher than the conventional wisdom in the media.

--Clinton wins by 14+: Totally different race, as Clinton will be on a path to claim a popular vote win that will give her every bit as much of an argument as the legitimate "winner". In this scenario anything could ultimately happen, including neither Clinton nor Obama becoming the eventual nominee.


By the by, one of your comments from just before the vote. She won by 9, which, by your own admission, favors Obama.

The tangent comes from you not following the debate. Your attempt to justify your deviation is extremely poor.

And for the record, this is the last number that RCP had listed for ARG (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html):

ARG* 04/17 - 04/19 600 LV 54 41 Clinton +13.0

Which is STILL off, and by a significant margin.

The tangent comes from you not following the debate. Your attempt to justify your deviation is extremely poor.

And for the record, this is the last number that RCP had listed for ARG (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html):

ARG* 04/17 - 04/19 600 LV 54 41 Clinton +13.0


Which doesn't change what ARG listed, which is 16. Meanwhile, you continue to avoid all substantive points. They were WAAAAAAY off. They were all over the map shifting by the poll by incredible numbers. Their methodology is more than questionable. You can cling to an old number that was also wrong but less wrong all you like, it won't change that they are a pollster to be ignored. This opinion is held by everyone but them and you.

Once again, you avoid the point.

Let's try again - which is closer 7 (Quinnipac) or 12 (ARG) to 9.3?

(I'll give you a hint. It's not ARG.)

Unlike most of your posts, you'll notice the linked post contains an argument, one you ignored.

Is this a tangent too? Because I've posted it four times and you've ignored to whine about tangents. The "tangent" only gets more play by you, because you choose to ignore the posts that prove you wrong.

Which is STILL off, and by a significant margin.
Which has nothing to do with KSP's post, Corny's comment and my rebuttal.

Which has nothing to do with KSP's post, Corny's comment and my rebuttal.

Yes, but every post that does have to do with it, you carefully avoid, what with the being wrong and all.

Let's try again - which is closer 7 (Quinnipac) or 12 (ARG) to 9.3?

(I'll give you a hint. It's not ARG.)

Again, was ARG closer than all of the other quoted numbers or not?

Which is STILL off, and by a significant margin.

Anyone else notice he has time to point all the posts that he claims aren't relevant, but he has not once replied to the posts that actually address is claim in rebuttal to KSP?

(Of course, comments about what ARG's final numbers were, whether their methodology is credible and whether they were all over the map aren't relevant to Corny's claim that their numbers should be thrown out. How dare anyone suggest we look at methodology when deciding which polls are reliable. Science is another word for madness.)

You claimed ARG was closer than any of the other pollsters listed. 16 was their final polling numbers.
Irrelevant to the discussion.

Regardless, they claimed 12 in KSP's list and they were off by 2.7. Quinnipac, also on his list, claimed 7 which is off by 2.3. Quinnipac was closer, your claim was wrong.
Actually you are right there. Therefore ARG was 2nd closest to the accurate number, but still better than the RCP average. There ya go, partial victory.....enjoy.

Happy? No matter how you spin this, you were wrong and Corny was correct.
No matter how you spin this, Corny was wrong for making this claim:

We can definitely throw out PPP and ARG.

Which has nothing to do with KSP's post, Corny's comment and my rebuttal.

Corny's comment was that we can throw out ARG. He didn't say why. We're telling you why. Since you're claiming Corny was wrong, it's on you to rebutt our reasons for throwing out ARG. That makes all of their numbers relevant. That makes all of the problems with methodology relevant. They are all relevant to Corny's comment (which you've astonishingly claimed was wrong).

Not only was your "rebuttal" wrong (because ARG wasn't not the closest one on the list), but you've refused to address that Corny was right to throw out ARG (he didn't just throw out the 12, but ARG as a pollster) and all of the arguments for why he was right.

It's called debate. Try it. Let's stop hearing about Corny's grammar. Let's stop hearing about his spelling. Let's here why their final number of 16 isn't relevant to their numbers being unreliable. Let's here why their methodology isn't relevant to Corny's claim that ARG should be thrown out. Let's here why the fact they are all over the map isn't relevant to Corny's claim. Let's pretend like you're hear to debate rather than bitch at Corny.

Irrelevant to the discussion.
Why? He claimed their numbers were unreliable. Certainly their final numbers are relevant to their reliability, no?
Actually you are right there. Therefore ARG was 2nd closest to the accurate number, but still better than the RCP average. There ya go, partial victory.....enjoy.
Except, they changed their answer before the vote, and they proved why they are unreliable. That they put out numbers at one point that were kind of close isn't relevant. There ya go, you're utterly wrong.....enjoy.
No matter how you spin this, Corny was wrong for making this claim:
He was? So we shouldn't throw out ARG's numbers? Why not? They were wrong. Not only were they wrong, but their methodology was wrong. Not only were they wrong, but they changed their answer to be MORE wrong. You keep trying to ignore this, but Corny didn't say 12 was wrong. He said ARG was. And they were, "no matter how you spin this".

Actually you are right there.

In other words, you were wrong. Good to know.

Meanwhile, the RCP final average was MUCH closer than ARG's final polling. In fact, it was much closer throughout than ARG was on almost EVERY poll.

Polls are snapshots. ARG post a 13, not a 12 (that was likely a typo). On the last day they changed their number to 16. So either Obama cut the lead approximately in half in 24 hours or they were wrong. We both know what it was.

Zogby updated their numbers as well. They gave Clinton +10. So they were closer than ARG.

Quinnipac was off by 2.3. They were closer.

SurveyUSA was at 6 in their final count. They were closer.

Strategic Vision was closer.

InsiderAdvantage was closer.

Rasmussen was closer.

Suffolk was closer.

Of all the polling on RCP, only PPP was farther off in polling.

ARG showed unreliable numbers. Tied, then +20 Clinton, then +13, then +16. They were sort of close at one point, but that point was several days before the final outcome, before a climb all the polling shows happening in the last couple of days. Their snapshot was never reflective of the position of the electorate.

Why? He claimed their numbers were unreliable.
Where did he make that claim? He didn't. He simply stated:

We can definitely throw out PPP and ARG.

Certainly their final numbers are relevant to their reliability, no?
Their final numbers were irrelevant to the discussion at hand....you know, the one regarding KSP's numbers, Corny's reply, and my subsequent reply.

Except, they changed their answer before the vote, and they proved why they are unreliable. That they put out numbers at one point that were kind of close isn't relevant. There ya go, you're utterly wrong.....enjoy.
KSP's numbers were from the morning of April 12 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13627712&postcount=125).

Unless, he copied them wrong, those numbers were relevant at the time and RCP had them at 13 points on the 19th.

You keep trying to ignore this, but Corny didn't say 12 was wrong. He said ARG was. And they were, "no matter how you spin this".
No matter how you spin this, Corny's reply was 2 minutes after KSP's post on the 21st. Your defence of Corny in this regard is kind of interesting, especially considering your earlier post to him:

Well, given you're as all over the place as ARG, I'd say you got lucky as well. The only reason you lately tend to be right more often than CH is that you, for once, chose the right team.
So Corny's skill, or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It is because he chose the right "team".

Now, all we need to do is for Jocabia to back and prove the latter part of his claim. I'll wait. :D

Where did he make that claim? He didn't. He simply stated:

Ah, so he didn't mention their numbers, just the pollsters themselves. Hmmm... then why do you keep sticking to the numbers he didn't mention, and why do you keep ignoring that he was right about the pollsters?
Their final numbers were irrelevant to the discussion at hand....you know, the one regarding KSP's numbers, Corny's reply, and my subsequent reply.

As you quoted, Corny never mentioned the numbers, but whether or not we should throw out ARG. And he was right, we should. In fact, the specific numbers you are clinging to, never came from ARG, and the poll he was trying to quote was tossed by ARG as no longer relevant (and replaced with an even worse claim).

KSP's numbers were from the morning of April 12 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13627712&postcount=125).

Unless, he copied them wrong, those numbers were relevant at the time and RCP had them at 13 points on the 19th.

(You mean the 21st, before their final poll of +16 had come out) Yes, and at the time he posted them, they were still at +13. He did copy them wrong, and ARG was still very wrong, even if you consider the numbers that were NOT their final numbers.

No matter how you spin this, Corny's reply was 2 minutes after KSP's post on the 21st. Your defence of Corny in this regard is kind of interesting, especially considering your earlier post to him:

And Corny said that we can throw out ARG. He was right. ARG is unreliable. He didn't say +13 was wrong. He didn't say +12 was wrong. He said ARG was wrong. They are.
So Corny's skill, or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It is because he chose the right "team".

You're correct. The only skill Corny has demonstrated that exceeds your own is the ability to recognize that we're defeating you in every single debate on this topic. Otherwise, his skill very much resembles your own.

All of those things are entertaining when offered ALONG with debate, but you use them to avoid it.

So keep focusing on Corny because he's the only person here you're in the same league as.

(Sorry, Corny, but you guys keep focusing on this in the thread and bears commenting on. I will give you this, you do appear to be learning.)


Now, all we need to do is for Jocabia to back and prove the latter part of his claim. I'll wait. :D

I've already done so. No one is or ever has been fooled by you, CH. Whether you accept or not, you've adequately demonstrated that you are not up to the task of defeating ANY of the debators supporting Obama. In fact, you've clearly and substantively avoided debate, dropping arguments like hot potatoes, and selectively picking evidence.

And can I prove that, sure? Why else would you claim that ARG's numbers aren't relevant to whether or not they are credible? Why else would you claim that ARG's methodology is not relevant to whether or not they are credible? Why else would you cling to a number they never offered because it was close enough to the eventual outcome so as to somehow be relevant (provided people reading know NOTHING about statistics)?

See, he only said we could throw them out. He didn't say 12 was wrong. You've not once quoted him saying anything wrong. We CAN throw out ARG. You've not shown the first reason why that was false.

Now, we've adequately demonstrated why your claim was false. They didn't have the best numbers. They didn't have the second best numbers. In fact, even if you ignore all of their other polls, they were still off by almost 4 points. Unfortunately for you, pollsters don't get to say there were close once. They are providing snapshots and the snapshot they provided closest to the election was WAAAAAY off.

Oh, no, dear, don't you see, everyone that was closer than ARG doesn't count for a plethora of made-up reasons.
Did I say that? Absolutely not. That is your problem. You make up shit and pretend that it is/was part of my argument. It wasn't and therefore your argument fails.

IA doesn't count because they weren't listed on KSP's list.
Of course it doesn't count, strictly because it was not the basis for my argument. You have turned this discussion into a personal crusade.

The RCP average doesn't count, because an average doesn't have to be within it's margin of error, but rather it has to be exactly on the final result or it's wrong.
Okay, Mr. Scientific guy, what is RCP's "margin of error"? What is their methodology? How many interviews do they conduct?

Let's look at part of your argument:

So we shouldn't throw out ARG's numbers? Why not? They were wrong. Not only were they wrong, but their methodology was wrong. Not only were they wrong, but they changed their answer to be MORE wrong.
So if ARG is so wrong according to you, then why does RCP use polls such as ARG and others that you have questioned as part of their average? So how scientific is RCP then? Ahh, that's right. It isn't. It is only as scientific as the polls that it "averages".

Throwing out PPP would have driven them upwards, where the final result was, but we're wrong to suggest that we throw out outliers, despite the statistical need to so.
However, they didn't throw out PPP and therefore their average was affected. RCP is affected by every poll that it averages.

SurveyUSA counts because he likes their results, even though in his retroactive comparisons they were among the farthest off and were never closer than the RCP average ended up being.
And yet, you have used SurveyUSA extensively in other posts regarding Obama's electability. And no, I don't prefer any one poll. There are times I disagree with all or most of them from time to time, for the simple reason that they all mess up.

And 7 is less than 2, dummy.
And again, that is because you want to change a 12 into a 16. I didn't do that....you did!!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

Did I say that? Absolutely not. That is your problem. You make up shit and pretend that it is/was part of my argument. It wasn't and therefore your argument fails.

You amuse me. Everyone can read what you're doing. My argument doesn't fail before everyone watching. Yours does. That's good enough for me.

Of course it doesn't count, strictly because it was not the basis for my argument. You have turned this discussion into a personal crusade.

A personal crusade? If wanting to be accurate and to point out when other people are being dishonest is a personal crusade, then yes, I'm one a personal crusade. I'm sorry that you don't recognize that 13 was what their poll said and that said snapshot wasn't even the one closest to the election. The one closest to the elction was even more off.

Yes, I know "but Corny was wrong to throw them out as long as we limit the evidence to poll results they never got and reasons Corny never gave."

Okay, Mr. Scientific guy, what is RCP's "margin of error"? What is their methodology? How many interviews do they conduct?

And this, right here, proves you don't understand science OR statistics. You do realize that a great deal of science consists of compiling OTHER people's work, yes? THEIR methodology is that they only accept polls that were conducted properly and reliable and within the margin of error.


Let's look at part of your argument:


So if ARG is so wrong according to you, then why does RCP use polls such as ARG and others that you have questioned as part of their average? So how scientific is RCP then? Ahh, that's right. It isn't. It is only as scientific as the polls that it "averages".

They don't use ARG, friend. That's the point. Go look. They toss them. And 16 being wrong is "according to me"? Do they claim their margin of error is 7? Nope. Then 16 is wrong. That's just simple math.

You're right, which is why THEY throw out ARG as well. I'd like to see them throw out the outliers as well, but they admit their not doing so and that it increases their margin of error.


However, they didn't throw out PPP and therefore their average was affected. RCP is affected by every poll that it averages.

I agree. They would have a smaller margin of error if they threw out PPP. We do, which is why our margin of error is smaller.

And yet, you have used SurveyUSA extensively in other posts regarding Obama's electability. And no, I don't prefer any one poll. There are times I disagree with all or most of them from time to time, for the simple reason that they all mess up.

No, there are times you disagree with some of them when they don't have the numbers you want. You've already admitted that you select polls. Everyone here saw it.

Meanwhile, yes, you won't here me defending their use of outliers. It makes them less accurate, but not unscientific.

The way you decide if a pollster "messes up" is by looking at their methodology, not by looking at whether or not you like their numbers. With the exception of ARG, nearly every one of the pollers were within their own margins of errors (which is usually about four+).


And again, that is because you want to change a 12 into a 16. I didn't do that....you did!!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13640797&postcount=165

No, you're correct. I did do that. That's because I actually know what a poll is. If we're talking about whether or not Corny was right to throw out a pollster, then we have to look at that pollster and whether or not they are performing within their own margin of error. ARG isn't.

Okay, Mr. Scientific guy, what is RCP's "margin of error"? What is their methodology? How many interviews do they conduct?

I just want to quote this one seperately, because if there was ever a statement you've made that in one fell swoop proves you're clueless when it comes to science, this is the one.

All you scientists on this board, enjoy.

It appears that Clinton is on a roll since winning in Pennsylvania.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph1_veo5mc.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph2_bdi6lc.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph3_trk3bw.gif

Although I am not a great fan of Gallup or any poll for that matter, I sure do like what is going on lately.

She also seems to have turned around that apparent Obama lead of +3 RCP that Corny reported a few days ago, and Clinton is now +2.2

Also more good polls out of NC show that Clinton has closed the +16 Obama gap, down to a +10 Obama lead.

I can smile today!! :)

It appears that Clinton is on a roll since winning in Pennsylvania.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph1_veo5mc.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph2_bdi6lc.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042908DailyUpdateGraph3_trk3bw.gif

Although I am not a great fan of Gallup or any poll for that matter, I sure do like what is going on lately.

She also seems to have turned around that apparent Obama lead of +3 RCP that Corny reported a few days ago, and Clinton is now +2.2

Also more good polls out of NC show that Clinton has closed the +16 Obama gap, down to a +10 Obama lead.

I can smile today!! :)

Heh. Good news indeed, and I'm not being sarcastic. Very good sign.

It appears that the only time this thread gets active is when Obama is doing well in the polls.

It also appears that Clinton is making a bit of a comeback these days, so I will milk it for all its' worth:

Obama's 10 point lead for the Democratic Presidential Nomination (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html) seems to be evapourating. He is down to a +1.6 RCP lead, with 3 of the last 4 polls favouring Clinton.

The Gallup Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx)that most of you were pounding earlier, shows a +4 for Clinton.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050108DailyUpdateGraph1_brod82.gif

Obama is sliding against McCain:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050108DailyUpdateGraph2_bcor6s.gif

Clinton and McCain are tied:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050108DailyUpdateGraph3_toby3f.gif

These maps seem to validate (at this point) what I was stating earlier about Clinton's strength vs. Obama, and it also demonstrates that the red states are going to stay red states for the most part.

Clinton vs. McCain (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May01.html)

Electoral Votes: Clinton 291 McCain 247

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May01.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): FL IA MO OH WV (70 ECV)
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI (31 ECV)

Obama vs. McCain (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May01.html)

Electoral Votes: Obama 243 McCain 269 Ties 26

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May01.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA (16 ECV)
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH PA (25 ECV)

It appears that the huge Obama lead of +16 is also drying up in North Carolina.

Obama is now down to +7 RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html).

It appears that the huge Obama lead of +16 is also drying up in North Carolina.

Obama is now down to +7 RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html).

She's not going to win it, but she is on track to make it closer than Obama made Pennsylvania and she might eek out a win in Indiana. At that point there is nothing in her narrative that allows her to quit, maybe even if Supers decide in June. This might be the pin pull moment, and there's no going back now.

And I won't even blame the most of this on Wright, I noted in a post that I don't know where wound up that she had finally caught on the notion of contesting areas where she wasn't leading or favored. It only took her 40-some contests to realize how this works. That's Day One readiness for ya...If she had done this from the beginning Obama would have been out by Super Tuesday.

I agreee with most of that, but I do think you'll see a bounce in the next few days. The low polling is going to lower expectations, which bodes well for him if the final result is even slightly better than it's looking right now. It's how Clinton made some of her wins look so good.

She is doing a great job of competing in NC, though. And I saw her on Fox News and I have to say that she is coming across very well. I liked her in the interview.

Zogby has Obama up in both races. By 9 in NC and 2 in IN. Zogby nailed PA nearly on the nose and has a good history of beeing pretty close to the pulse of the contest.

Whether they are right or not, it's a good sign as this is the first poll to break toward Obama in IN since Wright lost his mind.

Heh. Good news indeed, and I'm not being sarcastic. Very good sign.

I want to point out this post from a week ago. As I said, it was a great sign. Nothing like a win going against the projections. It really helps with momentum.

Time for yet another update. Clinton gets stronger and Obama is stuck at 242 and even with the ties (24 ECV), he loses.

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May23.html): Clinton 315 McCain 206 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May23.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May23.html): Obama 242 McCain 272 Ties 24

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May23.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Looks like Clinton has more potential in the red states than does Obama. No surprise to me. I have been saying that all along.

Time for yet another update. Clinton gets stronger and Obama is stuck at 242 and even with the ties (24 ECV), he loses.

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May23.html): Clinton 315 McCain 206 Ties 17

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May23.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): AR FL MO NV NM NC OH WV
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): NH WI

Electoral Votes (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May23.html): Obama 242 McCain 272 Ties 24

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May23.png

Dem pickups (vs. 2004): CO IA NM
GOP pickups (vs. 2004): MI NH WI

Looks like Clinton has more potential in the red states than does Obama. No surprise to me. I have been saying that all along.

Oh, Dear GOD. Seriously, selective evidence is one thing. That you refuse to actually defend this ludicrous site and that it actually says that Obama is stronger is laughable. So do you agree that Texas is in play if Obama is the candidate? Because the site you just offered up says it is. Come on. Don't just cut-and-paste spam. Defend the site.

Oh, Dear GOD. Seriously, selective evidence is one thing. That you refuse to actually defend this ludicrous site and that it actually says that Obama is stronger is laughable. So do you agree that Texas is in play if Obama is the candidate? Because the site you just offered up says it is. Come on. Don't just cut-and-paste spam. Defend the site.
Why is it a "ludicrous site"? The site says that "Obama is stronger"? Where are you getting that?

Also, I don't see it as spam. It is a visual tool and I support the post with comments. After all, they say that a picture is worth a 1,000 words. :)

Why is it a "ludicrous site"? The site says that "Obama is stronger"? Where are you getting that?

Also, I don't see it as spam. It is a visual tool and I support the post with comments. After all, they say that a picture is worth a 1,000 words. :)

I'm saying defend the site? Why is it more relevant than other sites? Why do you like it? Because you THINK it agrees with you?

I asked you a specific question. Do you think Texas is in play this season for Obama? Your site does.

That site is smoking something illegal if it thinks Obama loses NC while Clinton wins it.

Oh, and even by that electoral vote site Obama's still winning with two coinflips one of which (Virginia) would probably go for Obama, winning the election.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May24.html

That site is smoking something illegal if it thinks Obama loses NC while Clinton wins it.
Please explain your rationale.

Oh, and even by that electoral vote site Obama's still winning with two coinflips one of which (Virginia) would probably go for Obama, winning the election.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May24.html
So, now you are for the site?

BTW, it shows Clinton winning without any coin flips.

Please explain your rationale.

How ironic. You've been asked several questions regarding that site. Are you simply conceding the point?

I'm saying defend the site?
It uses recent polling and explains them

Now...why do you think the site is "ludicrous"?

Why is it more relevant than other sites?
I didn't say it was more relevant than other sites. Perhaps you can provide some comparators?

Why do you like it?
See above.

Why don't you like it?

Because you THINK it agrees with you?
It certainly seems to back what I have stated many times about red states and who is more electable.

I asked you a specific question. Do you think Texas is in play this season for Obama? Your site does.
If you think 50% to 41% means "in play" I guess it is. That would mean also 9% undecided. In 2004, Kerry lost to Bush 38% to 61%. Considering that Texas is Bush's home state, that seems reasonable.

It uses recent polling and explains them

Now...why do you think the site is "ludicrous"?

I explained why. It uses only one poll and it doesn't drop polls that are odd out. (This is also something I don't like about RCP, as you know.)


I didn't say it was more relevant than other sites. Perhaps you can provide some comparators?

No, you did what you always do. You chose selective evidence. I don't mind using that site. However, you aren't using everything. You reject anything that plays against your candidate.

However, this is all just thunder anyway. She's not going to be in the general.



See above.

Why don't you like it?

I've answered that question several times.


It certainly seems to back what I have stated many times about red states and who is more electable.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, which is why you like it. However, when we point to polls that say the opposite, you ignore them. Like I said, selective evidence.

You also refuse to address that Obama is fighting his own party and the Republican party. If she wasn't doing this well, it would just be sad. I notice you have YET to reply to this. I suppose there's a reason for that.




If you think 50% to 41% means "in play" I guess it is. That would mean also 9% undecided. In 2004, Kerry lost to Bush 38% to 61%. Considering that Texas is Bush's home state, that seems reasonable.

Considering Barr is expected to pull 8 or 9 percent, I'd say "in play" would be exactly what it is. Considering the Dems are still divided, hell yeah, that's in play.

As you've pointed out so many times, it's only May. THe only states that anyone can rely on are the ones that are in the way Rep and way Dem column. The rest really are in play. So who does better in that case? Any guesses.

That site is smoking something illegal if it thinks Obama loses NC while Clinton wins it.
Electoral-vote.com simply averages all the most recent polls. I suspect the latest NC Obama-Clinton-McCain poll conducted in my state (the only one published in the past week) is an outlier; the Obama-McCain numbers are about the same as they've been, but every previous poll has had Clinton losing to McCain by a larger margin.

Electoral-vote.com simply averages all the most recent polls. I suspect the latest NC Obama-Clinton-McCain poll conducted in my state (the only one published in the past week) is an outlier; the Obama-McCain numbers are about the same as they've been, but every previous poll has had Clinton losing to McCain by a larger margin.

They don't average from what I can tell. They just seem to use the most recent poll. And in some cases they are using numbers that are from February. Numbers from before basically the entire campaign.

They don't average from what I can tell. They just seem to use the most recent poll. And in some cases they are using numbers that are from February. Numbers from before basically the entire campaign.
They do average the numbers... but their window is much smaller than the interval between polls when you're looking at the head-to-head matchup in NC. IIRC, the window is 5-7 days or so, so if there haven't been competing polls coming out recently, the map reports the "average" of that single poll.

It's reasonable methodolgy when the polling runs fast and furious, but perhaps there should be a minimum sample size to average from that's larger than one...

They do average the numbers... but their window is much smaller than the interval between polls when you're looking at the head-to-head matchup in NC. IIRC, the window is 5-7 days or so, so if there haven't been competing polls coming out recently, the map reports the "average" of that single poll.

Hmmm... I didn't notice that. Their window should be larger, though, methinks. And if you're going to discount polls older than a certain date, then you should always do it. Either the older polls matter, or they don't.


It's reasonable methodolgy when the polling runs fast and furious, but perhaps there should be a minimum sample size to average from that's larger than one...

OR just not count those states. There's nothing wrong with simply admitting you don't have a valid sampling for a state. Again, this is a beef I have with RCP. They try to get enough to average so they extend their windows on certain states. It's less valid. Not more.

Wouldn't make a difference in this particular case, though; the poll showing Clinton winning NC over McCain is recent, and the rest of them aren't.

IMO, the older polls are reasonably valid in suggesting that this latest one probably just pulled a "bad" sample.

I'd suggest that polls have a half-life of 2-3 weeks and weight appropriately by sqrt(n)... but that's just me, and I don't have the time to run a similar website.

Here's a really cold question to chew on: With all the pundits talking demographics, has anybody done an analysis of how much of a shift in polling data we can expect based on comparative morbity of McCain, Clinton, and Obama supporters?

In other words, if we take each of these dissected age-race-gender groups, and alter them for six months of deaths, could the gradual demographic shift of the country have any potentially measurable effect on polling numbers?

Well, given that Obama polls best among the young and worst of the three among the old, if there were a shift it would benefit him. I can't imagine it would be worth noting though.