Donde conspiracy theorists?

[cannon_fodder]

The polls showed Obama with as much as a 14 point lead over Clinton.  The exit polls had the O man up significantly.  His lead had been growing notably.

Some polling stations ran out of ballots and had to wait for more and/or turn people away.  What's more, some of the people who work for the company that prints the ballots and some people on the election board gave money to Hillary.

Shouldn't this be PROOF that the Clinton's will do anything to manipulate the system and gain power?  Clearly if a poll says someone should win they should.  Clearly Hillary supporters who work for the corporations who print and distribute ballots shorted the Obama supported areas.

I think it's another grant election conspiracy. [}:)]

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The polls showed Obama with as much as a 14 point lead over Clinton.  The exit polls had the O man up significantly.  His lead had been growing notably.

Some polling stations ran out of ballots and had to wait for more and/or turn people away.  What's more, some of the people who work for the company that prints the ballots and some people on the election board gave money to Hillary.

Shouldn't this be PROOF that the Clinton's will do anything to manipulate the system and gain power?  Clearly if a poll says someone should win they should.  Clearly Hillary supporters who work for the corporations who print and distribute ballots shorted the Obama supported areas.

I think it's another grant election conspiracy. [}:)]

I like it....run with it.

[Conan71]

I heard on one of the talk shows that you don't even have to be a resident of New Hampshire yet to vote there.  Just tell the election board you will be moving there prior to the election.  As well, cross party voting and independents voting in either as well makes it ripe to load the box.

I told you guys, no matter what the polls said, the Clintons have too much political capital in the bank in NH to overcome.

Hell, they might even know one of Sam Giancana's nephews or something like that.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

That's why the only tally which matters to me is the one AFTER the election.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

That's why the only tally which matters to me is the one AFTER the election.

Very true. It'll also be interesting to see how Obama does in caucuses and elections compared to his polling. If the Bradley effect is coming into play he'll do well in caucuses, but badly in elections when compared to the polling data.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

That's why the only tally which matters to me is the one AFTER the election.

Telephone and exit polling is always inaccurate.  Me, my kids and most people I work with are too busy to accept a call from a pollster or stop to answer questions on the way out of a polling booth.  We simply have other things to go and do.

My Wife on the other hand will stop, and chat, or take the phone calls and make the pollsters her best friends.  She can sit and talk for 30 minutes with a tele-marketer.  All they get from me is the slam of my phone or my secretary telling them not to call back. (Except for TulsaNow, I have plenty of time for that).

So. . . my theory is that these polls are based almost entirely on the opinions of people with nothing better to do.  That is a pretty poor sample.  

So of course the polling in New Hampshire showed a 14 point lead for Obama.  He has a strong audience of young people who feel disenfranchised by the current system,  his audience is also very available for comment.  The problem is how do you motivate these people to vote?  

I have some advice for Mr. Obama.  He should get together with Mtv and the Cartoon network, to arrange for 1 hour blocks of time during the primaries (and election if he makes it that far) in which a message is just left on the screen that says "TODAY IS TUESDAY, PUT ON YOUR SHOES, GO VOTE NOW, VOTE OBAMA."

He could also arrange for the online services for Xbox and other video games to be down at that time.  If he could only figure out how to convince the head-shops to close, that would be the perfect tri-fecta!

Dude! Where do I vote?

[FOTD]

Dude, it really does not matter where to vote. This country could be rigged!
Democracy?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5537
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4940
Recount that hag Hillary's votes today before
her slaves wipe the memory clean. We need to go to paper ballots for this election. Is nothing sacred in this country anymore?


By the way, his name sounds Arabic to me, is he one of those Iraqi "reistance" and a friend of Chalabi by any chance?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

That's why the only tally which matters to me is the one AFTER the election.

Telephone and exit polling is always inaccurate.  Me, my kids and most people I work with are too busy to accept a call from a pollster or stop to answer questions on the way out of a polling booth.  We simply have other things to go and do.

My Wife on the other hand will stop, and chat, or take the phone calls and make the pollsters her best friends.  She can sit and talk for 30 minutes with a tele-marketer.  All they get from me is the slam of my phone or my secretary telling them not to call back. (Except for TulsaNow, I have plenty of time for that).

So. . . my theory is that these polls are based almost entirely on the opinions of people with nothing better to do.  That is a pretty poor sample.  

So of course the polling in New Hampshire showed a 14 point lead for Obama.  He has a strong audience of young people who feel disenfranchised by the current system,  his audience is also very available for comment.  The problem is how do you motivate these people to vote?  

I have some advice for Mr. Obama.  He should get together with Mtv and the Cartoon network, to arrange for 1 hour blocks of time during the primaries (and election if he makes it that far) in which a message is just left on the screen that says "TODAY IS TUESDAY, PUT ON YOUR SHOES, GO VOTE NOW, VOTE OBAMA."

He could also arrange for the online services for Xbox and other video games to be down at that time.  If he could only figure out how to convince the head-shops to close, that would be the perfect tri-fecta!

Dude! Where do I vote?

Telephone polling is inaccurate because they might talk to 1000 registered voters, yet only half of those might turn out to vote.  Or some people will throw out whatever answer they can think of on the spot.

Exit polls, assuming it's a face-to-face encounter removes the cloak of private balloting and someone might well say they just voted for someone or an issue which is not popular.

I'm happy for people who love to follow polls, there are many resources for them.  I just don't happen to be one of them.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Could it not just be the Bradley effect leading to inaccurate polling data?

As in people saying one thing and voting another. It'll be interesting to see in future primaries if this happens again.

That's why the only tally which matters to me is the one AFTER the election.

Telephone and exit polling is always inaccurate.  Me, my kids and most people I work with are too busy to accept a call from a pollster or stop to answer questions on the way out of a polling booth.  We simply have other things to go and do.

My Wife on the other hand will stop, and chat, or take the phone calls and make the pollsters her best friends.  She can sit and talk for 30 minutes with a tele-marketer.  All they get from me is the slam of my phone or my secretary telling them not to call back. (Except for TulsaNow, I have plenty of time for that).

So. . . my theory is that these polls are based almost entirely on the opinions of people with nothing better to do.  That is a pretty poor sample.  

So of course the polling in New Hampshire showed a 14 point lead for Obama.  He has a strong audience of young people who feel disenfranchised by the current system,  his audience is also very available for comment.  The problem is how do you motivate these people to vote?  

I have some advice for Mr. Obama.  He should get together with Mtv and the Cartoon network, to arrange for 1 hour blocks of time during the primaries (and election if he makes it that far) in which a message is just left on the screen that says "TODAY IS TUESDAY, PUT ON YOUR SHOES, GO VOTE NOW, VOTE OBAMA."

He could also arrange for the online services for Xbox and other video games to be down at that time.  If he could only figure out how to convince the head-shops to close, that would be the perfect tri-fecta!

Dude! Where do I vote?

Telephone polling is inaccurate because they might talk to 1000 registered voters, yet only half of those might turn out to vote.  Or some people will throw out whatever answer they can think of on the spot.

Exit polls, assuming it's a face-to-face encounter removes the cloak of private balloting and someone might well say they just voted for someone or an issue which is not popular.

I'm happy for people who love to follow polls, there are many resources for them.  I just don't happen to be one of them.

Sorry I wasn't saying the polling is always wrong, but highlighting a specific effect that has happened called the Bradley effect. Which is when polling is out when a white candidate and non candidate are running.

Bradley Effect

[FOTD]

http://www.bradblog.com/index.php?p=5535#respond

Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH

Hand count the pieces of paper.
It should be automatic when the exit polls disagree so drasticly with the final tally, particularly where electronic voting and tabulating machines are used. That way, it doesn't look like sour grapes by the second place finisher, it's just the normal way things are done. In some places, votes that are very tight are automaticly recounted, there is no bad reflection on the candidates for calling for it and the Public is better served, we can have more confidence in the outcome.