Very clever analysis of polls before 2000 election

DavidS

Anti-Tea Party Member
Sep 7, 2008
9,811
770
48
New York, NY
FoxNews had on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that showed Al Gore with an 11 point lead over George W. Bush on October 4, 2000. They compared that to the current poll with Obama showing a 10 point lead over McCain and told their viewers not to trust the polls.

Indeed Gallup did have a poll on October 4, 2000 that did show Gore to be in the lead by 11 points. However, what FauxNews ISN'T telling you is that on October 5, that lead plunged and Al Gore only had a 1 point lead. What happened? Gallup didn't include, in its 10/4 survey, people who watched the debate between Bush and Gore on 10/3. Bush handily defeated Gore in that debate and thus Gore's lead in the polls plunged.

There have been two presidential debates so far, and one vice-presidential debate. Every time there's a debate, Obama's lead increases or stays the same. No matter what debate, when it's held, where it's held, how many people are watching it, team blue always comes out victorious in the polls.

While I agree that you cannot look at one simple poll, you can look at the trend in polls over a period of time. The trend after that debate was in George Bush's favor and the 10/14 Gallup poll showed Bush ahead by 4 points with a 3% margin of error.

The trend is your friend. If you look at the overall trend in the Gallup poll, Obama has consistently remained ahead of McCain. In 2000, Gore and Bush constantly switched who was winning and who was losing. In 2004, after the second debate, Bush showed a solid lead over Kerry and remained in the lead.

Tomorrow night's debate is vital for the McCain campaign. John McCain is offering a new economic plan and he absolutely MUST make the case that his new economic plan will get us out this recession faster than Obama's will. John McCain can NOT mention pork barrell spending, Iraq, Ayres or Wright. People hate Iraq and don't care about the other two. John McCain has to look confident, decisive and get Obama to make a mistake. He cannot call Obama "that one," and cannot be dis-respectful. By Friday or Saturday, if McCain isn't in the lead in some polls, or isn't polling dead-even, the only way he can do anything for his campaign is by getting rid of Palin and putting Senator Hutchinson from Texas on his ticket.

Again, don't look at one poll. Look at the trends in ALL of the polls.

Fox also brought up something about Dewey and Truman from the 1950s. If Fox really needs to go back all the way to the 1950s to justify how the polls are incorrect, they're in trouble.
 
Gore won in 2000, the SC mangled the recount, there were irregularities of epic proportions in florida (and elsewhere), and 2004 saw some of the same.

I am not convinced that Bush ever won fairly, though I am convinced that about as many people supported him as his opponent, which is some small comfort.

The polls do show Obama clearly ahead, with 21 days to go, he has a more robust and stable lead than either previous contender, but don't count out vote fraud from caging to electronic tampering just yet. After all, Diebold admits its machines drop votes in areas that trend democratic.
 
FoxNews had on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that showed Al Gore with an 11 point lead over George W. Bush on October 4, 2000. They compared that to the current poll with Obama showing a 10 point lead over McCain and told their viewers not to trust the polls.

Indeed Gallup did have a poll on October 4, 2000 that did show Gore to be in the lead by 11 points. However, what FauxNews ISN'T telling you is that on October 5, that lead plunged and Al Gore only had a 1 point lead. What happened? Gallup didn't include, in its 10/4 survey, people who watched the debate between Bush and Gore on 10/3. Bush handily defeated Gore in that debate and thus Gore's lead in the polls plunged.

There have been two presidential debates so far, and one vice-presidential debate. Every time there's a debate, Obama's lead increases or stays the same. No matter what debate, when it's held, where it's held, how many people are watching it, team blue always comes out victorious in the polls.

While I agree that you cannot look at one simple poll, you can look at the trend in polls over a period of time. The trend after that debate was in George Bush's favor and the 10/14 Gallup poll showed Bush ahead by 4 points with a 3% margin of error.

The trend is your friend. If you look at the overall trend in the Gallup poll, Obama has consistently remained ahead of McCain. In 2000, Gore and Bush constantly switched who was winning and who was losing. In 2004, after the second debate, Bush showed a solid lead over Kerry and remained in the lead.

Tomorrow night's debate is vital for the McCain campaign. John McCain is offering a new economic plan and he absolutely MUST make the case that his new economic plan will get us out this recession faster than Obama's will. John McCain can NOT mention pork barrell spending, Iraq, Ayres or Wright. People hate Iraq and don't care about the other two. John McCain has to look confident, decisive and get Obama to make a mistake. He cannot call Obama "that one," and cannot be dis-respectful. By Friday or Saturday, if McCain isn't in the lead in some polls, or isn't polling dead-even, the only way he can do anything for his campaign is by getting rid of Palin and putting Senator Hutchinson from Texas on his ticket.

Again, don't look at one poll. Look at the trends in ALL of the polls.

Fox also brought up something about Dewey and Truman from the 1950s. If Fox really needs to go back all the way to the 1950s to justify how the polls are incorrect, they're in trouble.


AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!!!!!!!! :clap2::clap2::clap2: Great post
 
FoxNews had on a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that showed Al Gore with an 11 point lead over George W. Bush on October 4, 2000. They compared that to the current poll with Obama showing a 10 point lead over McCain and told their viewers not to trust the polls.

Indeed Gallup did have a poll on October 4, 2000 that did show Gore to be in the lead by 11 points. However, what FauxNews ISN'T telling you is that on October 5, that lead plunged and Al Gore only had a 1 point lead. What happened? Gallup didn't include, in its 10/4 survey, people who watched the debate between Bush and Gore on 10/3. Bush handily defeated Gore in that debate and thus Gore's lead in the polls plunged.

There have been two presidential debates so far, and one vice-presidential debate. Every time there's a debate, Obama's lead increases or stays the same. No matter what debate, when it's held, where it's held, how many people are watching it, team blue always comes out victorious in the polls.

While I agree that you cannot look at one simple poll, you can look at the trend in polls over a period of time. The trend after that debate was in George Bush's favor and the 10/14 Gallup poll showed Bush ahead by 4 points with a 3% margin of error.

The trend is your friend. If you look at the overall trend in the Gallup poll, Obama has consistently remained ahead of McCain. In 2000, Gore and Bush constantly switched who was winning and who was losing. In 2004, after the second debate, Bush showed a solid lead over Kerry and remained in the lead.

Tomorrow night's debate is vital for the McCain campaign. John McCain is offering a new economic plan and he absolutely MUST make the case that his new economic plan will get us out this recession faster than Obama's will. John McCain can NOT mention pork barrell spending, Iraq, Ayres or Wright. People hate Iraq and don't care about the other two. John McCain has to look confident, decisive and get Obama to make a mistake. He cannot call Obama "that one," and cannot be dis-respectful. By Friday or Saturday, if McCain isn't in the lead in some polls, or isn't polling dead-even, the only way he can do anything for his campaign is by getting rid of Palin and putting Senator Hutchinson from Texas on his ticket.

Again, don't look at one poll. Look at the trends in ALL of the polls.

Fox also brought up something about Dewey and Truman from the 1950s. If Fox really needs to go back all the way to the 1950s to justify how the polls are incorrect, they're in trouble.



By the way, we've been down here in S Fl working hard to make sure the Jewish community knows about Barack's brother in law(Michelle's Bro) who is the most well-respected black rabbi in the nation so make sure you spread that word also so that the community doesn't start believing this crap about Obama being a Muslim and anti-Israel crap
 
Gore won in 2000, the SC mangled the recount, there were irregularities of epic proportions in florida (and elsewhere), and 2004 saw some of the same.

I am not convinced that Bush ever won fairly, though I am convinced that about as many people supported him as his opponent, which is some small comfort.

The polls do show Obama clearly ahead, with 21 days to go, he has a more robust and stable lead than either previous contender, but don't count out vote fraud from caging to electronic tampering just yet. After all, Diebold admits its machines drop votes in areas that trend democratic.

You can make a case for 2000, but Bush clearly won in 2004.
 
No he didnt.

The Ohio election was a mess set up to make dem voters stand in line for hours in the rain to try and vote.
 
Ohio has a Democratic governor this time, and Obama has twice as much money as McCain.

Plus, Milfy Mooseburger is a drag on the ticket.

McCain is done.

Of course the funny thing is, Obama can win without Florida or Ohio.
 
Yesterday I wrote a very similar comment on another thread involving polls.

Essentially we cannot trust any one poll, not even ones that are on the up and up, but we can trust many polls to give us an indication of the trend in thinking.

That basically why I tend not to get involved in threads touting that one candidate or the other is in the lead.

A single swallow does not a summer make, and all that, ya know?
 
No he didnt.

The Ohio election was a mess set up to make dem voters stand in line for hours in the rain to try and vote.

And the code that counts the vote is now known to drop votes in areas that lean democratic, this is admitted by the manufacturers.

THis is consistent with the exit polling not matching the official count.

there are tons of other smoking guns, such as virtually every irregularity favoring bush, and Spoonamore and Connell basically admitting that they helped or knew of electrobnic rigging in Ohio:

Quick example:

Another GOP cyber security expert, Stephen Spoonamore, has stated that Mr. Connell has vast experience and knowledge of the GOP computer networks at issue in the federal lawsuit. Mr. Connell has admitted to Mr. Spoonamore "that in his zeal to 'save the unborn' he may have helped others who have compromised elections."

Velvet Revolution Calls on John McCain to Fire Michael Connell for Covering Up for Karl Rove in Federal Election Manipulation Lawsuit - MarketWatch

et cetera, Bush never won imo but he had about as many supporters as Gore or Kerry.
 
Ohio has a Democratic governor this time, and Obama has twice as much money as McCain.

Plus, Milfy Mooseburger is a drag on the ticket.

McCain is done.

Of course the funny thing is, Obama can win without Florida or Ohio.

Three words: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Okay, that was four.

Still. Obama has to plan on McCain winning every swing state, including Virginia and North Carolina (feels weird to say that those states are swing states). Obama has to do everything in his power to win those states, because the people in those states think like the people in the other states do. I can see Florida going to McCain easily because of the rednecks and the seniors not liking Obama because he's black, but not Ohio. Obama MUST win Ohio. I guarantee you no matter what any polls say if Obama does not win Ohio, he will not win the election. Anything can happen in the next 3 weeks. Palin could do a shoot for Playboy.... and then that would become their best selling issue EVER.
 
Three words: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Okay, that was four.

Still. Obama has to plan on McCain winning every swing state, including Virginia and North Carolina (feels weird to say that those states are swing states). Obama has to do everything in his power to win those states, because the people in those states think like the people in the other states do. I can see Florida going to McCain easily because of the rednecks and the seniors not liking Obama because he's black, but not Ohio. Obama MUST win Ohio. I guarantee you no matter what any polls say if Obama does not win Ohio, he will not win the election. Anything can happen in the next 3 weeks. Palin could do a shoot for Playboy.... and then that would become their best selling issue EVER.

I don't think it will happen either.

I think Obama is going to win most of the swing states and Ohio.

This guy know how to win an election. He beat the Clintons for Christ's sake!
 
Ohio has a Democratic governor this time, and Obama has twice as much money as McCain.

Plus, Milfy Mooseburger is a drag on the ticket.

McCain is done.

Of course the funny thing is, Obama can win without Florida or Ohio.

Yeah, and Ohio has a Dem secretary of state who has been ordered by a federal judge to hand over her books.
 
By the way, we've been down here in S Fl working hard to make sure the Jewish community knows about Barack's brother in law(Michelle's Bro) who is the most well-respected black rabbi in the nation so make sure you spread that word also so that the community doesn't start believing this crap about Obama being a Muslim and anti-Israel crap

wow, you actually have to try and convince jewish people to vote democrat?

Wow, you have no communication skills
 

Forum List

Back
Top