Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (
-   Politics (
-   -   Hillary's poll numbers tanking... (

Max Raker 11-29-2007 03:12 AM

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine. But you weren't really interested in that, you just wanted to make a smarmy comment...

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by design? You do not think pollsters are trying to accurately predict who will win?

And I am more than willing to change my mind on if she can win but I would need some facts and logical thinking.

Copernicus 11-29-2007 08:27 AM

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
Black men got the vote before women and one of the arguments against giving them the vote is "we'd have to give women the vote". I think you're underestimating the vagina factor.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your basic argument is that the country is more sexist than it is racist? I would strongly disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the meaning of "sexist" in this context. Some people wouldnt label a woman who would never vote for a woman as "sexist" but there are significant numbers of them. If you include them as "sexist" it is very close wrt whether the country is more sexist than racist. Add in the general dislike for Shrillary, and looking only at "ists and isms" Obama probably wins (ie loses less votes).

Obamas problem is experience. I dont believe that the country would turn over the country to a partial term Senator, whethe he was white, black, man, woman or Vulcan.

The anti-woman + anti-Clinton factor is why I dont think discounting a very large Dem win is unreasonable no matter who the GOP puts up.

DVaut1 11-29-2007 11:24 AM

Re: Hillary\'s poll numbers tanking...
It isn't a flaw, it is by design. I would guess that most years, it works fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this year, some completely unique thing that completely immeasurable right now is going to turn the polls on their head and prove you right after all?

I love it. You actually went and did some research into how pollsters utilize 'likely voter' metrics and why they're accurate, concluded yourself that "most years it works fine", THEN you say "oh well, it usually works, but this year it's going to be all wrong anyway".

A+ cognitive dissonance sir. A+

Anyway, for those looking for empirical evidence that demonstrates why pollsters are pretty accurate, you'll want to start here here.

For instance:

Final results: Bush 48%, Gore 48%, Nader 3%

But yeah, these guys were WAY off.

Even if you want to harp on the few percentage points the polling averages were off, it's rather easily explainable by Bluementhal:

"Most of the polls were conducted over the final weekend, although a few were done as much as a week before the election. Over the final weekend, four of the five daily tracking surveys charted by the Polling Report (Gallup, Zogby, Battleground and TIPP) showed Gore gaining ground. Second, most of the surveys gave Ralph Nader more support (4% on average) than he received on Election Day (2.7%). Presumably, some Nader supporters switched to Gore at the last moment when the final polls showed that Gore closing on Bush."

I suppose I shouldn't even sarcastically beat the "polls are inaccurate" drum, since you've conceded that "most years it works fine". At this point, you've just embraced the notion that while polling usually works fine, this year it's going to be proven grossly inaccurate by your crackpot theories.

Like others have said, you may want to contact these pollsters and let them know of the major theoretical "Hillary Flaw" you've found. I suspect if you're demonstrably correct on election day, you'll make untold millions. Not sure why you're wasting your energy here when there's a multi-billion dollar polling industry to usurp.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.