Stealing the White House Reprise (Trees And Things)

Shy Elf: Sample Size

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:21:42 EST

Poll Name Sample Size Margin
AP/GtK 800 Obama +1
GwU

uncarved block: No Conspiracy

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:45:45 EST

I just didn't want to use the exact same word twice for the same idea. What can I say? You can take the kid out of the English major but you can't take . . .

zyxwvutsr: Re: Certainly

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:18 EST

That's possible. To which words were you referring?

thefadd: Re: Certainly

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:40:42 EST

Wow, you can even turn your own words around against yourself.

thefadd: Re: Two Points

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:37:04 EST

True. All the people who have voted previously have probably been washed from the rolls so they should actually be ticked over to the "unlikely voter" category.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Certainly

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:11:06 EST

The McCain campaign certainly isn't acting like these polls are meaningless...

Nor have they thrown in the towel, and that's all I am saying. One cannot reasonably look at polls today and conclude that a McCain victory could

port1080: Re: Two Points

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:55:43 EST

You are making the assumption that those newly-registered, many (if not most) of whom were hit up to register by ACORN and their ilk while walking out of the liquor store or wherever, are actually likely to get up of their asses on election day and make

zyxwvutsr: Re: Two Points

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:18:57 EST

...and all evidence indicates that all those newly registered voters (who presumably registered to, you know, vote)...
You are making the assumption that those newly-registered, many (if not most) of whom were hit up to regis

port1080: Re: Two Points

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:08:32 EST
More to the point, however, is the fact that there is such a massive difference in reputable polls that I don't think anyone knows all that well what's really going on:
The difference in the polling reflects different models. The polls that

uncarved block: Certainly

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:49:49 EST
Polls are bad, but they're all we have to go on-- and as Charlie Cook pointed out, early voting is more popular than ever, and all those results won't show up on polls of "likely voters", at least the way I understand the selection process. S

zyxwvutsr: Re: Only A Few

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:09:06 EST
The thing is that there are supposedly reliable polls showing Obama up by 1 point and other supposedly reputable polls showing Obama up by 14 points. The facile way to deal with that is to take the median, but that is not the correct answer.
Conspiracy

zyxwvutsr: Re: Two Points

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:03:18 EST

Which reputable polls have the election closer than this?
There's the George Washington University poll, for instance. More t

uncarved block: Only A Few

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:46:06 EST
Actually, not polls so much as collections of polls. Cookpolitical.com for one, Slate's election tracker, and Electoral-vote.com every once in a while. This election hasn't shaped up to be a nail biter all the way to the end, which will also

Shy Elf: Re: Two Points

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:57:22 EST
What polls have you been looking at?
Yes, you can find outliers that look competitive, but so long as you win by 2%, that's enough that people won't believe the election

zyxwvutsr: Re: Two Points

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:00:01 EST

Barring some kind of ninth life from the McCain campaign, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any states close enough, or enough of them, that anyone but the worst loonies are going to feel the election was stolen
Wha

uncarved block: Two Points

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:03:19 EST
Part of the reason those issues took off for Democrats is because both elections were so close. Barring some kind of ninth life from the McCain campaign, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any states close enough, or enough of them,

DEMachina: Re: lemme know when The Mouse actually votes

Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:48:59 EST
Unfortunately the Republican ones are the only ones happening. Photo ID requirements (I'm writing my 3rd-year research paper on these) have been proposed and passed by Republicans and only Republicans (only 2% of Democrats total across each state sup

Shy Elf: Re: lemme know when The Mouse actually votes

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:48:55 EST
There really ought to be plenty of room for compromise here. The Republican efforts to fix the problem are much worse than the problem itself in that they exclude too many legitimate voters, but we don't actually need Mickey Mouse on the voter rolls.

JimmyHavok: Re: lemme know when The Mouse actually votes

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:34:46 EST
His name will be on the outside of both of those ballots, so if he sent them both in he'd be in danger of getting a felony record.

gameCoder: Re: lemme know when The Mouse actually votes

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:13:57 EST
Just because a 7-year-old doesn't show up to vote doesn't mean that that vote doesn't get counted. Someone could show up with a forged ID, or better yet, get an absentee ballot. I'm sure even Mickey Mouse could vote via absentee ballot and stan

Lou: Bigboutay...boutay!

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:19:31 EST
Buckaroo Bonzai...one of the greatest movies every made.

1fastdog: lemme know when The Mouse actually votes

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:56:24 EST
'cuz then there'll be something serious to talk about. When Mickey Mouse (ears and all!!) actually shows up at the polling place and actually casts a friggin' vote, then it's definitively voter fraud. And lemme know how and when that 7 yr old girl's gonna

zyxwvutsr: Re: the neutral pseudonym

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:30:05 EST
If you need a lot of fake names you need look no further than your spam inbox:
Andre Tonia
Natosha Hannelore
Stella Shanda
Tess Dong
Kristyn Phung
Jeanna Jenny
Lanie Lindy
Faviolia Gertrude
etc.

skeptic: the neutral pseudonym

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:06:34 EST
For the purpose of making a campaign donation, if you want to evade some regulation by using a pseudonym, it seems foolish to choose one that is obviously a false name that nobody would ever have, such as Jgtj Jfggjjfgj. The most traditional pseudony

pO157: Re: An unrelated matter.

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:32:58 EST
I agree. I disagree with using public money for these types of things, but it goes to his character. If he originally said he'd limit himself to public funds to keep spending down, then why change? Obviously he saw the writing on the wall that he could out

delete me: Re: An unrelated matter.

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:47 EST
I'm glad Obama isn't spending our tax money to run for office. Look at how much he spends!

MayorBob: Money Well Spent.

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:51:27 EST
"But seriously, how do we know this isn't a dirty trick by the GOP?"
It's a much more promising campaign tactic than putting McCain or Palin out in public articulating their vision of what's at stake and how to fix what's broken.

pO157: An unrelated matter.

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:45:32 EST
I, for one, am shocked that the media and the talking heads are not pressing Obama's campaign on his failure to abide by the pledge to take public funds.
Also, don't knock Mr. Jfggjjfgi for donating his $1,077. Everybody knows there is tons of money to