Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,159,948 times
Reputation: 21738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
Except you clearly don't have a concept of history. Check out the historical patterns of post-convention bounces. McCain's bounce is well within the historical norm. And bounces hardly predict who actually wins the election. Goldwater had a bigger bounce than LBJ, yet LBJ won by landslide. Carter and Mondale had bigger bounces than Reagan, yet Reagan won by landslide. So, yeah, feel free to wallow in your ignorance......
It's useless to argue with newbies who've never witnessed the election process before.

Since you mentioned Carter/Reagan, here's what Time has to say about that:

Quote:
For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was "too close to call." A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.


But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote—a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-l avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.
Those of us who have been around for a while have at least a minuscule understanding of voters.

Historically, it's people who scream loudest that change their minds most often, and at the last minute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:31 PM
 
2,260 posts, read 3,880,925 times
Reputation: 475
Statistics is about models and controlling for varibles, how the range of a possible outcome effects the outcome is irreleveant. Comparing polls in this race to past polls is a useless endeavor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf View Post
Well, I think you have little to no knowledge of statistics. These bounces occur within a range. The numbers may range from -1% (Kerry) to +12% (Bill Clinton). 2.4% is well within the range, albeit on the low end. With regards to your intelligence, what can I say? I suspect you haven't benefited from Dubya's No Child Left Behind education program. I suggest you take advantage of it now before the Republicans are booted out of office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,937,590 times
Reputation: 7118
Most of these polls have an advantage to the democrat. Rasmussen and Gallup both use approx 9 or 10% more dems than republicans.

Of course the Left is questioning them now. There are in their bubble and can't fathom how McCain could possibly be ahead of obama - unless someone is cheating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:37 PM
 
Location: OC, CA
3,309 posts, read 5,701,472 times
Reputation: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Most of these polls have an advantage to the democrat. Rasmussen and Gallup both use approx 9 or 10% more dems than republicans.

Of course the Left is questioning them now. There are in their bubble and can't fathom how McCain could possibly be ahead of obama - unless someone is cheating.
Dems dont vote at the same percentage Republicans do. When they actually only show "likely voters" McCain is almost always ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,937,590 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
If that's all McCain got from his convention, then that's a rather weak bounce than usually happens.
Gallup had obama up by 8. McCain now leads by 5. That's a 13 point bounce.
USATodat/Gallup poll had obama by 3 with LV, McCain leads that by 10 now. Big bounce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,581,229 times
Reputation: 631
Another reason not to go by the polls:
Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
The Democrats have posted big gains in many competitive states, including Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and Florida. They have also been targeting historically Republican southern states.
Since 2006, the Democrats have added 167,000 voters in North Carolina, while the Republicans have added 36,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,937,590 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
then that's a rather weak bounce than usually happens
As you can see, Obama's was the fourth weakest in the last 44 years.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,937,590 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Another reason not to go by the polls
Can we remind of this when and if the polls turn around?

I realize your depression in seeing The One in free-fall mode - it's a tough thing to swallow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
9,847 posts, read 25,241,325 times
Reputation: 3629
You have to remember the press thrives off a "close election." Be careful with those polls folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2008, 10:16 PM
 
Location: Bergen County, NJ
9,847 posts, read 25,241,325 times
Reputation: 3629
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
As you can see, Obama's was the fourth weakest in the last 44 years.
Outside of Clinton, most of the ones who got a big bounce lost. Could it be that a big bounce is fleeting? A smaller bounce might be a good sign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top