Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2019, 08:47:41 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: Obama's Long Ride Down - The Numbers  (Read 19118 times)
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,407
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: March 20, 2008, 02:05:21 pm »

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,929
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: March 20, 2008, 02:10:35 pm »

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?

Exactly.  And even if he wasn't, you'd have to put a huge amount of trust in the ARG poll.  And ignore the fact that all other pollsters were showing a trend that ARG wasn't.  And ignore the fact that J.J.'s original comment explicitly stated he wasn't referring to ARG.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: March 20, 2008, 02:55:03 pm »

When I was posting the tightening, those four polls were the ones out.  PPP looked like an outrider at the time (2/12).  We did also have the ARG numbers all over the place.

No, you posted about the tightening on the evening of Feb 18th.  At that time, the PPP poll from 02-17 (which was consistent with their result from 02-12) had already been added to the forum database.  Even if we exclude ARG and give you the benefit of the doubt and exclude the 02-12 PPP poll as an outlier, we're left with a sum total of three polls for 2008; all of which had Obama holding steady with a 4 point and then 5 point lead.

On what evidence, therefore, were you basing the assertion that the race was tightening?

I was looking at the PPP as being possibly a bad poll.  We had Rasmussen and Research 2000 both showing it closer than the first PPP (I think by more that the MOE).  I wasn't looking too much at the ARG as showing Clinton was leading, but showing a tightening race.  It turned out that the PPP was right on the money. 

You had the PPP (2/12) showing an eleven point lead for Obama, then you had three polls that averaged a 1 point lead; the last one showed a greater difference.  Then I said, "It's narrowing."  Yes, at that point, it sure was, assuming the polls were right; they weren't.  Smiley
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: March 20, 2008, 02:57:18 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: March 20, 2008, 04:53:13 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: March 20, 2008, 05:01:49 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Img


Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,564
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: March 20, 2008, 07:02:36 pm »

At present, I just don't see anything in the polling to justify the superdelegates coalescing around Hillary.  Yes, McCain has been gaining on Obama over the past few weeks, but he's also been gaining on Hillary by the same amount or maybe even a little more.

The superdelegates, if they are deciding between the two on purely pragmatic grounds, are not going to decide who to go for because of who will win in a Clinton v. Obama race, but because of who has the better chance to beat McCain, and everything I've seen in the polling indicates that is still Obama for now.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: March 20, 2008, 07:26:03 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Img


Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?

Zach, I'm looking at all the polls.  We had the first PPP, then we had three that were notably lower, and with the first ARG poll, showing a solid decline in Obama's support.  It was a drop of 10-11 points when I made the comment.  Then we have the second PPP poll.  Now, were both of the PPP's using bad methodology?  It turns out no, but I couldn't tell that at the time.

There was, going by those polls a rather substantial tightening of the race.

I'm sorry if you cannot understand Obama +11, Obama +4, Obama +5, and Obama -6, really looks like a tightening of the race.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,929
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: March 20, 2008, 07:34:48 pm »
« Edited: March 20, 2008, 07:42:05 pm by Alcon »

J. J.,

So, in other words, it's irrelevant who does polls, and:

=THEORETICAL=
Pollster A, 1/1: D+6
Pollster B, 1/1: R+3
Pollster A, 1/8: D+9
Pollster B, 1/8: R+1
=END THEORETICAL==

Is a trend toward the GOP?  Especially if pollster B is crap?  That's a silly interpretation.

And you still are ignoring the fact that you said you were disregarding Zogby and ARG polls in the analysis, which makes for the following pattern (margin, followed by pollster in parentheses):

C+15 (A)
C+13 (A)
C+16 (A)
C+22 (A)
C+7 (A)
O+4 (A)
O+11 (B)
O+4 (C)
O+5 (D)
O+13 (B)

So, we have Obama's highest showing from pollster A, two new polls from pollster B showing a slight Obama trend, and polls C and D showing a closer race than pollster B.  But, after these polls were released, pollster B releases a poll corroborating the pro-Obama trend continuing.  Pollsters C and D's tighter showing is therefore not much of an indicator of trend, so much as pollster differences.

Confusing?  In other words:

1. Pollster A showed a strong, gradual trend toward Obama.  Their last poll showed Obama at his highest level ever.

2. Pollster B found Obama +11.  Afterwards, two pollsters found Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Then Pollster B, clearly finding more pro-Obama results as a whole, found Obama +13.

The only way we can find a pro-Clinton trend is by ignoring the second result from pollster B, and then comparing their first results to results from other firms.  That doesn't make a lick of sense! 
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: March 20, 2008, 07:57:53 pm »

J. J.,

So, in other words, it's irrelevant who does polls, and:

=THEORETICAL=
Pollster A, 1/1: D+6
Pollster B, 1/1: R+3
Pollster A, 1/8: D+9
Pollster B, 1/8: R+1
=END THEORETICAL==

Is a trend toward the GOP?  Especially if pollster B is crap?  That's a silly interpretation.

And you still are ignoring the fact that you said you were disregarding Zogby and ARG polls in the analysis, which makes for the following pattern (margin, followed by pollster in parentheses):

C+15 (A)
C+13 (A)
C+16 (A)
C+22 (A)
C+7 (A)
O+4 (A)
O+11 (B)
O+4 (C)
O+5 (D)
O+13 (B)

So, we have Obama's highest showing from pollster A, new polls from pollster B showing a slight Obama trend, and polls C and D showing a closer race - but while pollster B shows an Obama-ward progression.  In other words:

1. Pollster A showed a strong, gradual trend toward Obama.  Their last poll showed Obama at his highest level ever.

2. Pollster B found Obama +11.  Afterwards, two pollsters found Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Then Pollster B, clearly finding more pro-Obama results as a whole, found Obama +13.

The only way we can find a pro-Clinton trend is by ignoring the second result from pollster B, and then comparing their first results to results from other firms.  That doesn't make a lick of sense!

First of all, let's go back:

02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I don't recall PPP, but let's assume that it's a good poll.

02-13   Rasmussen   O +4 

Good company, did well in 2004

02-14   Research 2000   O +5

Not particularly good, but close to prior results.

02-16   ARG   C +6   

Bad polling in general.  I'm not saying, "Clinton's winning, because ARG is showing she's up six."

I'm also looking at ARG and saying, "It probably isn't 10-12 points off. Obama is probably around +3 to +6."  If the first PPP is correct, and these other polls are correct, Obama has dropped from +11 to +6, perhaps to +3.

Then we get the second PPP; it is Obama +13.  Is this bad methodology, an outrider, or it it right and the bots, ARG, Research 2000 all off?  It turned out to be the third option, which surprised me.  Or, in other words, the opposite of what happened in NH happened in WI.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: March 20, 2008, 08:22:07 pm »

Except PPP even openly admitted in their poll writeups that they were getting radically different numbers than the other pollsters, due to a different model they were using (which was actually far more accurate). So comparing PPP to the other pollsters is pointless. So you have one set of polls all showing Obama with numbers within the MoE, PPP showing another set of numbers all within the MoE and ARG being all around the place and wrong as usual. No trend whatsoever.

Over those four days, it looked like a trend.

Img


Trend or outlier? Anyone with common sense says outlier. Especially considering if it's not one than Obama mysteriously made a huge gain from the day before only to lose it. Not too mention as I said above the firm even admitted was so and explained why.

And your comments were made after the second PPP poll came out.

If you were thinking PPP was simply a bad poll as you stated and aren't including ARG either, then all the other polls have the race roughly the same. You can not create a trend by comparing the first PPP poll to the rest, and ignore the second. As I said before, you have two sets of numbers excluding ARG, none showing any statistically significant trend (the slight trend within the MoE in fact was in Obama's favor.)

Have you noticed by the way that not a single person is defending you on this while some people who normally don't get along with me are taking my side?

Zach, I'm looking at all the polls.  We had the first PPP, then we had three that were notably lower, and with the first ARG poll, showing a solid decline in Obama's support.  It was a drop of 10-11 points when I made the comment.  Then we have the second PPP poll.  Now, were both of the PPP's using bad methodology?  It turns out no, but I couldn't tell that at the time.

There was, going by those polls a rather substantial tightening of the race.

I'm sorry if you cannot understand Obama +11, Obama +4, Obama +5, and Obama -6, really looks like a tightening of the race.

Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.

Second of all, the Rasmussen was one day after the first PPP poll. Considering nothing major happened then that would result in Obama losing 7 points, it's safe to assume one of them is off. The PPP was an outlier, just the rare outlier than turned out to be correct. But you can not deduce a trend from an outlier. If the polls were switched and Rasmussen came one day earlier and PPP a day later, the results would be basically the same, but does that mean that there was a spike in support for Obama which then faded for some inexplicable reason? Of course not. It's just an outlier.

And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,929
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: March 20, 2008, 08:30:10 pm »

First of all, let's go back:

02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I don't recall PPP, but let's assume that it's a good poll.

02-13   Rasmussen   O +4 

Good company, did well in 2004

02-14   Research 2000   O +5

Not particularly good, but close to prior results.

02-16   ARG   C +6   

Bad polling in general.  I'm not saying, "Clinton's winning, because ARG is showing she's up six."

I'm also looking at ARG and saying, "It probably isn't 10-12 points off. Obama is probably around +3 to +6."  If the first PPP is correct, and these other polls are correct, Obama has dropped from +11 to +6, perhaps to +3.

Then we get the second PPP; it is Obama +13.  Is this bad methodology, an outrider, or it it right and the bots, ARG, Research 2000 all off?  It turned out to be the third option, which surprised me.  Or, in other words, the opposite of what happened in NH happened in WI.

You are rewriting history.  You said (emphasis mine):

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

So, you cannot keep using the final ARG poll as an excuse for your being wrong.  You were ignoring that at the time.  Now we also know you were ignoring PPP.  Either you were ignoring them entirely, or you wrongly failed to check the poll database before making your claim.

Removing PPP and ARG, we have:

Strategic Vision (2/10): Obama +4
Rasmussen (2/13): Obama +4
Research 2000 (2/14): Obama +5

In other words, no trend.

So, that leaves us with three options:

1. You were wrong for including the first PPP poll but not the second; or,
2. You were citing poll results that never actually existed.

Either way, you made a mistake, and the fact that you keep trying to defend it, is perplexing to me.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: March 20, 2008, 08:38:32 pm »



Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.


It should not have been considered to be accurate, and possibly an outrider; please note tht I didn't say, "Look at ARG; Hillart's winning."  It's trend could have been accurate.

Quote
Second of all, the Rasmussen was one day after the first PPP poll. Considering nothing major happened then that would result in Obama losing 7 points, it's safe to assume one of them is off. The PPP was an outlier, just the rare outlier than turned out to be correct. But you can not deduce a trend from an outlier. If the polls were switched and Rasmussen came one day earlier and PPP a day later, the results would be basically the same, but does that mean that there was a spike in support for Obama which then faded for some inexplicable reason? Of course not. It's just an outlier.

I think if the PPP poll would have happened mid cycle, I wouldn't have used the word "tightening."  Smiley

Quote
And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

Quote
And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.

Likewise, just looking at two polls, I couldn't tell if it was methodology.  I don't recall looking a PPP before WI.  I was looking, excluding PPP, at a 5-6 point race, with that first ARG poll popping up.  Not a great poll, but it look like is showing a trend.  Remember I said "tightening" not "losing."  It turned out that PPP was right on the money.
Logged
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,929
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: March 20, 2008, 08:39:31 pm »

Again, you specifically said that you were seeing the trend without ARG, Zogby and - apparently now - PPP.  That leaves three polls that came out Obama +4, Obama +4 and Obama +5.  Please explain how this constitutes a trend.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: March 20, 2008, 09:00:31 pm »

Alcon, here is my initial comment, which Flem responded to:

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.
  All the polls have show'd a basic 5-7 pt Obama lead. No tightening of what you speak.

In that time, we had the bots with 4, a second with 5, and that ARG poll that I wasn't crazy about, showing a -6.  To me, that was a sign of tightening.  Didn't call it a sign of an impending Clinton victory, though I thought it was possible.

That PPP was out there, but quality was unknown.

BTW:  We were discussing the first ARG poll on that thread when I made that comment. 

Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: March 20, 2008, 09:55:52 pm »



Once again, the Obama -6 is an ARG, which should be disregarded, something you even claimed.


It should not have been considered to be accurate, and possibly an outrider; please note tht I didn't say, "Look at ARG; Hillart's winning."  It's trend could have been accurate.

It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

I think if the PPP poll would have happened mid cycle, I wouldn't have used the word "tightening."  Smiley

Once again, why does it matter when the PPP poll came out? The results would've been the same.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell that if two polls come out a day apart with a 7 point difference and no major events have happened to cause that drop in support, one is an outlier and wrong. Now we didn't necessarily know at the time which one that was, but it's ridiculous to draw a trend from that.

Quote
And you also ignore the last PPP poll. If you're going to compare polls from different firms, even when the firms are admittedly using different methodologies and expect to get different results, you can just ignore the last poll as well which showed the race was not certainly tightening. You're basically saying we should've taken the first PPP poll into account, but not the last one.

How could you tell if either was an out rider?

Wow, did you even read the post? Try the bolded part again. PPP admitted to using a different turnout model from all other pollsters and even outright said so as an explanation for why their results were so totally different. We didn't have any way of knowing at the time that PPP's model would be more accurate yes, but that's clearly an outlier since their results were outside the MoE of the rest of the polls. This is a rare instance where the outlier turned out to be correct, but that's beside the point.


Quote
And no, PPP was not using bad methodology, and we couldn't have known that at the time. However if you believe they were using bad methodology, then you have to toss both PPP polls, resulting in a couple that showed no trend whatsoever. You can't simply draw a trend from the first PPP poll, then dismiss the last one as a bad poll.

Likewise, just looking at two polls, I couldn't tell if it was methodology.  I don't recall looking a PPP before WI.  I was looking, excluding PPP, at a 5-6 point race, with that first ARG poll popping up.  Not a great poll, but it look like is showing a trend.  Remember I said "tightening" not "losing."  It turned out that PPP was right on the money.
[/quote]

As I said, PPP openly admitted in their poll write-ups they were using different methodology. As for the ARG poll, you have admitted it's garbage and worthless and were excluding it, so why even mention it?

In that time, we had the bots with 4, a second with 5, and that ARG poll that I wasn't crazy about, showing a -6. To me, that was a sign of tightening.

If it came from a half-decent pollster, yes, that might be a sign of tightening. 100% worthless ARG doesn't fit into that category.

And please note this in your post:

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

So you're basically saying ARG is a joke but the other polls are showing that it's tightening. Yet you can't bring up any such evidence of this "tightening" without mentioning ARG.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,817
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: March 21, 2008, 10:08:02 am »


It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

Except I didn't call it "garbage."  I said I was not "crazy" about it.  did it carry some weight, yes; did I give it a lot of weight and say, "This means Hillary will win?"  No.

[

Once again, why does it matter when the PPP poll came out? The results would've been the same.

Quote

Once again, I was looking at a trend.  Therefore, I look at time.

 
[



Wow, did you even read the post? Try the bolded part again. PPP admitted to using a different turnout model from all other pollsters and even outright said so as an explanation for why their results were so totally different. We didn't have any way of knowing at the time that PPP's model would be more accurate yes, but that's clearly an outlier since their results were outside the MoE of the rest of the polls. This is a rare instance where the outlier turned out to be correct, but that's beside the point.

If you would would have asked me which poll I trusted least at the time, it was PPP.  The reason was the difference between it and the other polls.  I actually had more faith in ARG than I did PPP at the time (and yes turned out to be wrong).

I saw one poll, that might or might not be correct that showed +11 for Obama, I saw a number of other polls, taken later, showing Obama much closer.

Now, that is the reason I said "tightening" and that is what I said at the time.


Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: March 21, 2008, 11:29:55 am »


It's a garbage poll by your own admission. Garbage polls shouldn't be looked at all, you can't say "well the poll is crap so it's probably not right but it might show some trend...", if the poll is crap, it's crap, the end.

Except I didn't call it "garbage."  I said I was not "crazy" about it.  did it carry some weight, yes; did I give it a lot of weight and say, "This means Hillary will win?"  No.

LOL. It's ARG! So totally worthless many want to ban their polls from the database.

Once again, I was looking at a trend.  Therefore, I look at time.

Unless you can give a valid reason why you would believe a 7 point drop for Obama in one day with nothing major happening is a realistic scenario, then you are basically admitting you're so dumb you can't spot an outlier.

 
If you would would have asked me which poll I trusted least at the time, it was PPP.  The reason was the difference between it and the other polls.  I actually had more faith in ARG than I did PPP at the time (and yes turned out to be wrong).

OK, first you're saying the gap between PPP and the other polls is sign of a trend. Now you're saying the difference between PPP and the other polls is why you didn't take it seriously. LOL!

This has more holes in it than than the claims about the supposed Duke rape case. And have you stopped to consider why absolutely no one is defending you on this including many people who are also attacking me as a hack?
Logged
motomonkey
Full Member
***
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: March 21, 2008, 01:07:13 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,564
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: March 21, 2008, 01:27:02 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: March 21, 2008, 04:11:10 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,268


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2008, 04:21:53 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2008, 04:26:47 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

Img


Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,268


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2008, 04:31:44 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

Img


Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,778
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: March 21, 2008, 04:39:04 pm »

The PA numbers show the "long ride down" continues with Clinton doubling her lead to 51% to 35%.  This could result in a 65% majority for Clinton if the trend continues. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=Aksl.ClNM4z6GqY5CKABdtRh24cA

I repeat, why will the superdelegates care about this?  They ought to be wondering about which of Obama and Clinton will do best against McCain, and there the trend has been that McCain has been gaining on both of them, and possibly gaining more on Clinton than on Obama (tho that subtrend is within the MoE).

Exactly. People often fail to realize that the superdelegates are not your typical politically uninformed voter. They don't care about momentum or anything, they look at the big picture.

Honestly, I suspect that's giving them way too much credit. They may be realistic at reading their own races, possibly, but not in other terms. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. By all accounts, competent, experienced politicians, yet they all thought they had a chance in the primaries. And were wrong.

If Clinton can get the media picture against Obama by big wins it will have an effect on super delegates. She's gonna throw other numbers at them too, as long as she has them. Losing Pennsylvania will certainly not kill Obama's candidacy, but it'll be another blow.

Richardson was always running for VP or a cabinet position. Dodd was most likely trying to build up name recognition to help him take Senate Majority Leader (he wasn't too successful, but it wasn't a bad idea in itself.) For Biden, well yeah he was quixotic, but he's had some success in the past. And he's still mentioned for VP or Sec of State.

At the very least, superdelegates are aware of the total delegate count. You aren't going to see hordes of superdelegates say "OMG, HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA, NOW WE MUST ANOINT HER AS THE NOMINEE!"

Here's a useful graph:

Img


Hillary's victories on 3/4 didn't result in hordes running toward her. Sure she slowed the trend toward Obama, but Hillary needs to do more than simply slow it now, hell she can't even halt it.

No, they're not going to anoint her. But if they sit down at the end of day and her wins in places like Pennsylvania has blurred the media picture so that people do not percieve Obama as the clear front-runner and choice of the people, then they will have to take in lots of factors, including electability, possible scandals, national polling, etc. And at that point she will be able to make her case to them.

As for supers flowing towards Obama, he had a bandwagon rolling during February. That doesn't get halted over-night. He was always going to catch-up with Clinton in supers given her headstart. The remaining ones are still waiting in the wings and I can't see the following primaries making them more likely to swing to Obama.

Lots of the remaining ones WANT to remain neutral for fairly obvious reasons. If forced to choose most would probably just go how their state voted or follow Nancy Pelosi and vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which is going to be Obama (Sorry J. J., you aren't a superdelegate so your opinion here doesn't mean sh!t.) And that's not even counting the 70+ add-ons who are actually somewhat elected and Obama holds the edge in.

The following primaries after Pennsylvania are pretty split too. Hillary has Indiana, those hick states and Puerto Rico, Obama has North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC