Obama 58, McCain 30
why does California keep getting polled!?!?! Why not the actual SWING STATES?
Posted on June 25, 2008 12:40 PM
Seriously Mich poll came out yesterday. I'm kinda shocked not to see it here yet.
Posted on June 25, 2008 12:48 PM
I agree. Why Mich hasnt been posted here?
That is probably the most interesting poll of the week.
Posted on June 25, 2008 1:09 PM
surveying 500 likely voters!! that poll must have taken 'em cinco minutos to slap together. but kudos to all you bullying obama voters who feel anyone who challenges you and your dear candidate is either toxic, doesn't have a right to be on sites such as this, or is a plant from the opposition. it frightens me that dissent is so virulent for you guys. why are you any different from the taliban, mugabe, putin or stalin? name calling, derision, and slamming doors in faces is the american version of monomania.
just talk civilly with us in argument and stop trying to shut ideas out that you dont like. okay?
if you continue to only want to agree to agree then you might as well start counting up the electoral votes now.
but for those of us, who have a less 'formulaic
view' of the voting public, "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip." consider previous polling data as run ups to the election and have a tad of humility. oh, wait, that isn't one of obama's attributes so why should it be yours.
Posted on June 25, 2008 1:12 PM
There were server problems yesterday, so Eric might have fallen behind a bit in getting all the polls posted. For anyone still wondering, the Michigan was:
(Public Policy Polling, 573 LVs, Sat-Sun)
Best approach to anyone still trying to pick a fight here is probably to ignore them, hard as that may be. This is a great place to catch up on polls, share observations drawn from the internals, and learn about survey research. It seems to have attracted a fair number of visitors who just want to provoke, and many of us would like to see them fail in that regard.
Posted on June 25, 2008 1:25 PM
boskop, who's arguing? Who's bullying? Everything seems calm.
By the way, you all but Hitlered your argument with this bit: "taliban, mugabe, putin or stalin."
For the record, yes, a sample size of 500 in CA seems pretty low. Though I'm not sure anyone here would dispute that.
Posted on June 25, 2008 1:27 PM
boskop for the 100th time, take your medication before posting!
Oh and for the record, I am not an Obama fan at all.
Posted on June 25, 2008 1:41 PM
The reason the CA poll might be relevant is that there was some speculation that it may be in play as a swing state. The argument being that all those voters who voted for Hillary in the primary would possibly vote for McCain and make CA competitive. I always thought that was a completely false argument (and I think it was put forth by the Clinton campaign). This poll and others that confirm a high Obama lead should put to rest any real hope of McCain being competitive.
Michigan was one of McCain's real chances and could prove pivotal if he can swing it his way. That's why Obama is putting so much effort there (also to heal relations with Dems who feel he jilted them by trying hard as hell to not allow their delegates in the primary totals.
Posted on June 25, 2008 2:27 PM
your snide comment about taking medication reminds me of some other now banned person (probably you under a different name) who said the same previously of others/
so let me see, when i disagree with obama people it's because i am off my medical feed?
that is so high brow i am speechless. and that is precisely why i left obama after New Hampshire and havent looked back. he is your leader, and you follow his lead wih arrogant dismissive put downs.
but let's talk polls, a sampling of 500 is more high school level junior year project. this country is so diffuse [COMMENT DELETED], that 500 cant even begin to ferret out the intricacies and nuances of the voters.
it is virtually a waste of time to take this kind of cursory sampling and validate it as it is to ask any of ou to refrain from manic myopia.
Posted on June 25, 2008 2:35 PM
boskop, there were THREE posts in this thread before you first chimed in. Which one demonstrated "manic myopia"?
why does California keep getting polled!?!?! Why not the actual SWING STATES?"
2. " 1magine:
Seriously Mich poll came out yesterday. I'm kinda shocked not to see it here yet."
3. " political_junki:
I agree. Why Mich hasnt been posted here?
That is probably the most interesting poll of the week."
Posted on June 25, 2008 2:38 PM
Rassmussen is very respected amongst the pollsters because they came the closest to predicting the 2004 results in the swing states. In fact, there is an article in Slate that tries to rationalize why Rasmussen and SurveyUSA were more accurate than most other pollsters on a state-by-state basis and the general assumption was because their polling was automated and took out human factors (Mason-Dixon came closest of the traditional polling organizations). See http://www.slate.com/id/2110860.
While I had my doubts about Rasmussen because they are Republican, you can't argue with success. And yes, a sample of 500 CAN accurately predict a state assuming you weight responses correctly.
Posted on June 25, 2008 2:57 PM
Don't feed the trolls. They don't care if there actually is a reason to argue or not.
Posted on June 25, 2008 2:58 PM
Sorry, the above link included a period which doesn't go to the right place. Try
Posted on June 25, 2008 3:02 PM
If it's alright for me to stay on the topic, I really do wonder why California has been polled twice withing a few days. Maybe they're trying to gauge the effect, if any, McCain's westward oil prospecting had on voter impressions.
Maybe McCain's campaign sees California as it's last hope for a clear win, since Obama has unlocked so many states from the GOP safezone.
Regardless, I'm sure this poll is disappointing those few who hoped McCain's visit would have meaningful impact.
PS: please don't attack me here. I'm really just speculating on the meaning behind the poll and its results. If you disagree, great, but let's be 'intelligent and civil'.
Posted on June 25, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment was not meant to be snide. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt. There are much harsher words that are completely appropriate for someone who compares 17 million Americans who voted for Obama with Taliban.
By reading your post, You being on medication is the kindest, most generous conclusion one can make.
Posted on June 25, 2008 11:18 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR