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?