Something's Wrong With The Polls

[Dr. Shane]

Gallup: Obama +11

Rassmussen: Obama +6

Zogby: Obama +2

Hotline: Obama +1

Battleground: Obama +4

All these polls were taken between Oct 4 - 7.

How can they be so far apart?

It must be the internals. Perhaps the ratio of Democrats/Republicans/Independents was significantly different.

Source: RealClearPolitics

[Woody]

It depends upon which ones Obama is payin off.

[Neil D]

How do you explain that FoxNews is saying that Obama, as of Sept 22-23 had 45% to McCain's 39%....?

Oh, is Obama paying off FauxNews too????

[Woody]

Okay. You got me. I have to believe that Fox News would be above any of those kind of tricks.

[Neil D]

Okay. You got me. I have to believe that Fox News would be above any of those kind of tricks.

Oooh, Idunno....I think that if you waved a big enough bill infront of Bill O'Really [yes, I spelled it right], you could buy him.....

[Woody]

Neil. You are shameful. And I don't mind sayin that to your face.

[Neil D]

Neil. You are shameful. And I don't mind sayin that to your face.

"Shamefully truthful"? Yes, I am.....

[Bravus]

And suggesting that Obama is paying off the pollsters isn't shameful?

The polls all have different methodologies and different samples, and may even ask the question in slightly different ways. But they are all pointing in the same general direction. Taking a raw (rather than weighted) average of them is not really statistically approriate, but it would suggest the real lead is somewhere in the vicinity of 5%, which is pretty comfortable given how close the past few elections have been.

[Woody]

And suggesting that Obama is paying off the pollsters isn't shameful?

[Woody]

And suggesting that Obama is paying off the pollsters isn't shameful?

The polls all have different methodologies and different samples, and may even ask the question in slightly different ways. But they are all pointing in the same general direction. Taking a raw (rather than weighted) average of them is not really statistically approriate, but it would suggest the real lead is somewhere in the vicinity of 5%, which is pretty comfortable given how close the past few elections have been.

I will again point out that the Nation wide polls really don't matter. Even if ALL of California for example ... voted for Obama ... what really matters is how the polls are in the swing states.

[Bravus]

Yep. It's the electoral college projections that are really meaningful, that's absolutely true. Here's one set:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Bit more than a 5% lead to Obama there...

[Bravus]

Incidentally, that site also shows that Shane was fairly lonely in thinking McCain won the second debate.

[Woody]

Bravus. That is a great site. Thanks. I've placed it on my favs.

[Bravus]

No worries - it is a handy one, isn't it?

[Woody]

On Second thought Bravus ... I have to change my mind. That site is obviously biased and blind. Let me quote what it said:

Quote:

Obama mentioned investor Warren Buffet as the kind of guy he liked; McCain sung the praises of former eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

That is the most ignorant thing I have heard. It must be that the author didn't even listen to the debate.

For the record ... McCain named Buffet as his first choice and then Obama copied the decision and agreed with McCain.

[Neil D]

I disagree that THAT is the most ignorant thing YOU have EVER HEARD....I know you have heard more ignorant things because I UTTERED THEM!

[carolaa]

Pollsters facing perfect storm:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27084438

[Bravus]

Woodie, I was sure I read that the other way around, with McCain mentioning Buffet. Maybe that was just my own filters, 'cos I knew that was the way it happened.

[Dr. Shane]

Incidentally, that site also shows that Shane was fairly lonely in thinking McCain won the second debate.

Shane never said McCain won the second debate. Shane said McCain did better in the second debate than he did in the first. However, that said, Shane rejects the notion of polls on who won the debate actually deciding who won the debate. Shane believes the winner of a debate is the one that causes the polls to move in his or her favor. It is still too early to see those polls as they are even now being taken.

[Dr. Shane]

For the record ... McCain named Buffet as his first choice and then Obama copied the decision and agreed with McCain.

I have seen that a lot in the past two debates. McCain will say something and Obama will then say he either agrees with McCain or that McCain is right. Obama does that a lot more often than McCain does.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

For the record ... McCain named Buffet as his first choice and then Obama copied the decision and agreed with McCain.

I have seen that a lot in the past two debates. McCain will say something and Obama will then say he either agrees with McCain or that McCain is right. Obama does that a lot more often than McCain does.

[Tom Wetmore]

Brokaw: Senator, we have one minute for a discussion here. Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?

Sen. McCain?

McCain: Not you, Tom.

Brokaw: No, with good reason.

McCain: You know, that's a tough question and there's a lot of qualified Americans. But I think the first criteria, Tom, would have to be somebody who immediately Americans identify with, immediately say, we can trust that individual.

A supporter of Sen. Obama's is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

I like Meg Whitman [former CEO of eBay and current McCain campaign adviser], she knows what it's like to be out there in the marketplace. She knows how to create jobs. Meg Whitman was CEO of a company that started with 12 people and is now 1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay. Maybe somebody here has done a little business with them.

But the point is it's going to have to be somebody who inspires trust and confidence. Because the problem in America today to a large extent, Tom, is that we don't have trust and confidence in our institutions because of the corruption on Wall Street and the greed and excess and the cronyism in Washington, D.C.

Brokaw: All right. Sen. McCain -- Sen. Obama, who do you have in mind for treasury secretary?

Obama: Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice -- Warren Buffett, and I'm pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it's not enough just to help those at the top.

Prosperity is not just going to trickle down. We've got to help the middle class.

And we've -- you know, Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Part of the problem here is that for many of you, wages and incomes have flat-lined. For many of you, it is getting harder and harder to save, harder and harder to retire.

And that's why, for example, on tax policy, what I want to do is provide a middle class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, those who are working two jobs, people who are not spending enough time with their kids, because they are struggling to make ends meet.

Sen. McCain is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, thank you very much.

From Debate Transcript

As I read it, and understood it when viewing it live, McCain did not clearly mention Buffett as his choice for Treasury Secretary, necessarily. He just describes what Buffett has been doing. But he does say he does like Meg Whitman.

Nor does Obama specifically say he would pick Buffett as his Treasury Secretary. He just acknowledges that he would be a pretty good choice, but that there are others out there to pick. He seems more interested in describing the qualities he would be looking for.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Now either Obama is purposely trying to mislead the American people or he is very anti-American. Which is it?

McCain has explained, and the context of the comment made it pretty clear, that what he considers the "fundamentals" of the economy are the American workers. McCain's point is that while the economy is in crisis the fundamentals, that is the American workers, are efficient, ambitious, dedicated and hard-working. He is giving light at the end of the tunnel. McCain is saying that we will pull through this because when the going gets tough the American worker pushes on through.

So Obama is either ignoring McCain's explanation and trying to deceive American voters into believing McCain was trying to deny the economic crisis OR Obama doesn't believe the American worker is efficient, ambitious and capable of getting through this crisis. Which is it?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

As I read it, and understood it when viewing it live, McCain did not clearly mention Buffett as his choice for Treasury Secretary, necessarily.

As I read it, and understood it when viewing it live, Buffet was McCain's first choice and Meg was an afterthought. I guess that is the difference between how a lawyer sees thing and how a businessman sees things.

Quote:

He seems more interested in describing the qualities he would be looking for.

...rather than answering the question.

I agree with that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Now either Obama is purposely trying to mislead the American people or he is very anti-American. Which is it?

McCain has explained, and the context of the comment made it pretty clear, that what he considers the "fundamentals" of the economy are the American workers. McCain's point is that while the economy is in crisis the fundamentals, that is the American workers, are efficient, ambitious, dedicated and hard-working. He is giving light at the end of the tunnel. McCain is saying that we will pull through this because when the going gets tough the American worker pushes on through.

So Obama is either ignoring McCain's explanation and trying to deceive American voters into believing McCain was trying to deny the economic crisis OR Obama doesn't believe the American worker is efficient, ambitious and capable of getting through this crisis. Which is it?

Or Obama is talking about economics as it is explained in nearly any dictionary, for example-

The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

Where does the "american worker" come into play with this definition? In all honesty, it doesn't. Economics deals with the production of an item, the distribution of an item, the consumption of those items and the theory and management of those economic systems. The American worker is NOT really a part of the definition, but rather he is the CONSUMER.....

It seems to me, that McCAin is saying that the American Worker is fine and strong and an good mule...because he can make all sorts of stuff. If that is what you see as economics, then yeah, the American Worker is a mule and you are the manager...and as a mule, I really don't like the manager....

But I will agree with this much....Obama and McCain are talkin' past each other...