MSNBC online Poll

[cognacXO]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

[Reds4]

The poll is definitely not a reliable source of information on who is ahead and by how much. I would guess that the majority, probably 55-60% or so of those who frequently visit msnbc.com are democrats. Democrats are seen as being online a little more than republicans, and many see MSNBC as at least somewhat liberal. I would highly suspect that if foxnews.com did a poll with the same question the results would be very different.

[Lunar]

It's done to survey those who visit MSNBC, not for America as a whole.

[angus]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

you gotta be kidding, right?  get over there and read the fine print on the poll again, if you're not.  and enroll in a statistics course, quickly.  don't wait for the fall, man.  you're going to need all your waking hours to pass it, clearly, so do it in the summer, so you won't have to worry about that and your other hard classes like basket weaving and physical education at the same time.

[Nation]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

you gotta be kidding, right?  get over there and read the fine print on the poll again, if you're not.  and enroll in a statistics course, quickly.  don't wait for the fall, man.  you're going to need all your waking hours to pass it, clearly, so do it in the summer, so you won't have to worry about that and your other hard classes like basket weaving and physical education at the same time.

AGAIN with the bashing of the basket weaving class. GET OFF ITS BACK, Angus! I only got a B+! It's not that easy.

[angus]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

you gotta be kidding, right?  get over there and read the fine print on the poll again, if you're not.  and enroll in a statistics course, quickly.  don't wait for the fall, man.  you're going to need all your waking hours to pass it, clearly, so do it in the summer, so you won't have to worry about that and your other hard classes like basket weaving and physical education at the same time.

AGAIN with the bashing of the basket weaving class. GET OFF ITS BACK, Angus! I only got a B+! It's not that easy.

sorry, I'll say "women's studies" or something like that next time.  

you should  be trying to figure out where that class meets  

[Nation]

I did, and they all hissed and shunned me. God knows why.

[12th Doctor]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

Ha, either you are ignorant or just plain stupid.  Even in a blowout Bush is sure to get at least 45% of the vot or so.  Secondly, non-scientific polls conducted on the internet always favor Dems, because most of the people who do those polls are liberal.

[Smash255]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

Ha, either you are ignorant or just plain stupid.  Even in a blowout Bush is sure to get at least 45% of the vot or so.  Secondly, non-scientific polls conducted on the internet always favor Dems, because most of the people who do those polls are liberal.

Their is some other poll, I don't rember what it was, but in their polls they always show Bush ahead, so not all un scientific polls lean Democratic this poll wwas also at one time linked through newmax (not sure if it still is), but that would explain a lot about those in that poll

[12th Doctor]

I have noticed that MSNBC has been conducting a nonscientific poll online for months now.  Just go to MSNBC and then go to Politics and click on one of the stories and vote.  They reset the poll every 2 weeks or so.  I have noticed that everytime that there is at least 250,000 samples taken.  And everytime, Kerry beats Bush by the minimum of 17 to 28 points.  I know this is a nonscientific poll, but it seems pretty accurate.  Anyone can vote on this poll, and you can only vote 1 time until the poll resets in 2 weeks.  All you have to do is click on the candidate and you can see the results.  Right now, Kerry is ahead by 30 points with 120,000 samples.  Is this poll reliable?  Can anyone explain.

Ha, either you are ignorant or just plain stupid.  Even in a blowout Bush is sure to get at least 45% of the vot or so.  Secondly, non-scientific polls conducted on the internet always favor Dems, because most of the people who do those polls are liberal.

Their is some other poll, I don't rember what it was, but in their polls they always show Bush ahead, so not all un scientific polls lean Democratic this poll wwas also at one time linked through newmax (not sure if it still is), but that would explain a lot about those in that poll

Well, it depends on the website, this is true, but I should say that for the most part, web polls hugely benefit Dems.  Look at the Cadidate Selector on Select Smart.  Something like 75% got Kerry as their closest.

[Lunar]

Ignorant means you don't know anything about the respective subject and stupid means you have a low IQ.

I'm ignorant about basket weaving for example.

[angus]

"That everyone may learn to read, in the long run corrupts not only writing, but also thinking.  Once, the spirit was God, then it became man, now even he becomes rabble."
  --Friedrich Nietzsche (from Walter Kaufmann's translation of Also Sprach Zarathustra)

Nietzsche was a very lonely man who suffered from many physical infirmities, probably the cause of his bitterness and his general rage against society.  Mostly I think he's a bit flaky and over-the-top in his analyses, but I think we may have found some hard evidence that he was right about this.  CognacXO knows just enough to be dangerous.  I often bitch and complain that our educational systems are failing us, that every child deserves an excellent, free public education, and that no price is too great for this endeavor.  But occassionally I'm reminded that the average literate person in 1704 wrote wonderfully insightful messages, but the average literate person in 2004 is much more likely to be a troll.  Maybe I'll have to rethink my position.  Elitism anyone?

[classical liberal]

Education is the responsibility of the parent.  If the parents in a community band together to provide education for the community it is logical, hence localy goverened public schools are acceptable.  However, statewide and nationally controlled public schools are both out of line.

[Giant Saguaro]

"That everyone may learn to read, in the long run corrupts not only writing, but also thinking.  Once, the spirit was God, then it became man, now even he becomes rabble."
  --Friedrich Nietzsche (from Walter Kaufmann's translation of Also Sprach Zarathustra)

Nietzsche was a very lonely man who suffered from many physical infirmities, probably the cause of his bitterness and his general rage against society.  Mostly I think he's a bit flaky and over-the-top in his analyses, but I think we may have found some hard evidence that he was right about this.  CognacXO knows just enough to be dangerous.  I often bitch and complain that our educational systems are failing us, that every child deserves an excellent, free public education, and that no price is too great for this endeavor.  But occassionally I'm reminded that the average literate person in 1704 wrote wonderfully insightful messages, but the average literate person in 2004 is much more likely to be a troll.  Maybe I'll have to rethink my position.  Elitism anyone?

No, not elitism. I agree with you. I don't know why this is; a pragmatic reason might be that people didn't have as much to do back then. All people do now is race and the technology keeps us racing. I mean you can't even compare this world to 1704. And speaking of education, it's now about getting a grade; it's not about learning and for the most part what everyone, including parents, care about is the bottom line: the grade. Get through. And teachers, profs, and admins want attractive numbers and don't want to hold someone back so they want everyone to get through, so the students get railroaded through if need be. That's the goal: get 'em through. Students are customers.

But coming back to why the average literate person is more likely to produce moronic nonsense than insightful thoughtfulness is a subject one could explore almost endlessly. Not only do people have more to do and keep them going now, they don't have the patience and attention span that they used to. In 1704, for example, travelling was on horseback, lasted the day, and maybe went a few miles. You got to see flowers and hear birds, which gave time to think and ponder. Now, travelling is a starting point and a destination. 750 miles a day. Pittsburgh to Phoenix in 3 long days; don't see anything, don't look at anything, just battle traffic and go like hell. Talk on the phone, play with the CD changer, etc. Or better yet, fly. You're there even faster, you see nothing, think about little except what you're going to do when you get to your destination, talk on the phone, or get some work done on the laptop. I could go on - like I said, this is a PhD dissertation topic, but there's more to keep us busy. People are extended much more, I think. Therefore, no one has the time, energy, or inclination to sit and write a poem or read a Dickensian style novel.

[12th Doctor]

Hey Super- what's the difference between "ignorant" and "just plain stupid"? Just curious.

Ignorant- Not knowing something because you were never told, or you were told/taught a differnt way.

Stupid- The act of being an idiot.

There is a difference.

[King]

I don't think all of them are registered voters. Dean lead the MSNBC poll for Iowa the day before the Caucuses by 34% :-/

[© tweed]

I don't think all of them are registered voters. Dean lead the MSNBC poll for Iowa the day before the Caucuses by 34% :-/

Dean led the internet by 34%.  They probably all were regsistered voters, but Dean's people were the geeeks on the internet who found the poll.

[The Vorlon]

For a poll to be accurate it has to follow one basic principle - every person in the population being measured must have an identical chance of being contacted.

Any poll which is self selecting (ie you choose or not to participate) is junk.

If you go to www.HateGeorgeBush.com and look at the online poll I suspect Mr. Kerry is doing well.

If you go to www.TaxCutsAreGood.com I suspect Mr. Bush is doing ok.

Gallup, Harris Online and Zogby are both doing some work on trying to get usable online internet polls, and I suspect in a few years they will have things sorted out.

But right now anything internet based has to be regarded as, at very best, experimental.

[minionofmidas]

This page's mock election - with far fewer users - has got similar results.
The Kerry lead on MSNBC is not o/c meaningful in any way; the swings may be though.