Current Polls

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Obama (according to the polls which I only trust so much) has a much bigger lead at this point than Gore or Kerry had. Much bigger. There is no need to ignore reality. That said, this election is not over. Not at all.

The problem is that the main point that the Republicans should make against the Democrats, in my opinion, is extremely nuanced. I think the best way to defeat Obama would be to paint the Democrats in congress as the ones who ignored the financial crisis and the Republicans as the ones who championed it. But this is a difficult case to make in less than a month to a country that runs on soundbites. And I don't think McCain has the economic background and knowledge to back up this claim.But instead McCain's pressing hard with the Weathermen crap which no one really cares about.

[Loismustdie 0]

The problem is that the main point that the Republicans should make against the Democrats, in my opinion, is extremely nuanced. I think the best way to defeat Obama would be to paint the Democrats in congress as the ones who ignored the financial crisis and the Republicans as the ones who championed it. But this is a difficult case to make in less than a month to a country that runs on soundbites. And I don't think McCain has the economic background and knowledge to back up this claim.But instead McCain's pressing hard with the Weathermen crap which no one really cares about.

I agree with this, and the way the debate was ran with the ****ing moderator butting in the whole time it's tough for McCain to not make it a soundbite even in a forum that shouldn't be about soundbites. It's tough to state your case in this environment so the ony real option is to get people riled up.

[vbnautilus 48]

New study of data from the primaries from University of Washington concludes "reverse bradley effect" and that polls may underestimate Obama's lead by 3 to 4 percent. http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html"The Bradley effect has mutated. We are seeing it in several states, but the reverse effect is much stronger," said Greenwald.

[hblask 1]

The problem is that the main point that the Republicans should make against the Democrats, in my opinion, is extremely nuanced. I think the best way to defeat Obama would be to paint the Democrats in congress as the ones who ignored the financial crisis and the Republicans as the ones who championed it. But this is a difficult case to make in less than a month to a country that runs on soundbites. And I don't think McCain has the economic background and knowledge to back up this claim.But instead McCain's pressing hard with the Weathermen crap which no one really cares about.

I think this is a problem for both parties, and is a problem for politics in general. I've learned a lot about positions opposed to mine through the types of in-depth discussions that can only occur with extended debate (such as this forum), and have moderated positions because of it. The average person is (quite rationally) ignorant of the details of any particular position, so they vote based on "Obama seems nice", "McCain is old", "<whoever> cares more", with little to back it up. Try to take the discussions on these forums to an average person on the street. Ask them to back up their position. It'd be comical if it didn't affect so many people.

[El Guapo 8]

I think this is a problem for both parties, and is a problem for politics in general. I've learned a lot about positions opposed to mine through the types of in-depth discussions that can only occur with extended debate (such as this forum), and have moderated positions because of it. The average person is (quite rationally) ignorant of the details of any particular position, so they vote based on "Obama seems nice", "McCain is old", "<whoever> cares more", with little to back it up. Try to take the discussions on these forums to an average person on the street. Ask them to back up their position. It'd be comical if it didn't affect so many people.

This is an excellent point. When I talk about politics to people and I explain a detailed issue, and say I just got in this discussion this week. They usually ask me where, and if it is someone who won't think I am completely weird, I will tell them on an internet forum. Most are confused about how you could get into a REAL discussion under this format, but now that I have been participating for a couple years now, I think it is the best way to to go over the issues and topics.A. You remove the face to face aspect where people tend to be non-confrontational. (Or the other side, extremely confrontational).B. You have time to gather your thoughts, and do research if needed.C. You get input from many different people with many different points of view across the nation and globe.D. For the most part it proves conservative are better at articulating their ideas**Sans LMD

[vbnautilus 48]

I think this is a problem for both parties, and is a problem for politics in general. I've learned a lot about positions opposed to mine through the types of in-depth discussions that can only occur with extended debate (such as this forum), and have moderated positions because of it. The average person is (quite rationally) ignorant of the details of any particular position, so they vote based on "Obama seems nice", "McCain is old", "<whoever> cares more", with little to back it up. Try to take the discussions on these forums to an average person on the street. Ask them to back up their position. It'd be comical if it didn't affect so many people.

I often wonder if that's a bad thing, though. If we were all stranded on a desert island, our leader would become apparent in the first few hours, and not because we all had reasoned opinions about his positions on fishing nets and listened to debates; we would be basing our choice on some semi-conscious perception of his natural position as leader in the social order. I realize with a presidential election there's a lot at stake, I'm just saying I don't necessarily trust the conscious mind over the subconscious mind which may have ultimately have a smarter basis for making leadership decisions than our conscious minds do. Just a possibility to think about.

D. For the most part it proves conservative are better at articulating their ideas*

skewed sample!

[gobears 0]

New study of data from the primaries from University of Washington concludes "reverse bradley effect" and that polls may underestimate Obama's lead by 3 to 4 percent. http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html"The Bradley effect has mutated. We are seeing it in several states, but the reverse effect is much stronger," said Greenwald.

fivethirtyeight.com comes to same conclustion:With that said, the evidence is pretty strong that the Bradley Effect in fact used to exist in the 1980s and probably through some point in the 1990s. In this Pew Research article you will find several examples of it, spanning the window from Harold Washington in 1983 to Carol Moseley Braun in 1992.The evidence is perhaps equally strong, however, that the Bradley Effect does not exist any longer. As can be seen in the Hopkins paper for Harvard University that I have referenced many times, at some point during the mid 1990s the Bradley Effect seems to be disappeared.No more Bradley Effect

[copernicus 0]

fivethirtyeight.com comes to same conclustion:With that said, the evidence is pretty strong that the Bradley Effect in fact used to exist in the 1980s and probably through some point in the 1990s. In this Pew Research article you will find several examples of it, spanning the window from Harold Washington in 1983 to Carol Moseley Braun in 1992.The evidence is perhaps equally strong, however, that the Bradley Effect does not exist any longer. As can be seen in the Hopkins paper for Harvard University that I have referenced many times, at some point during the mid 1990s the Bradley Effect seems to be disappeared.No more Bradley Effect

Pull out all the studies you like. There has never been a black candidate for President for them to study. Middle America...the swing states...have not progressed quite as far as you think wrt to trusting a black in control.

[vbnautilus 48]

Pull out all the studies you like. There has never been a black candidate for President for them to study. Middle America...the swing states...have not progressed quite as far as you think wrt to trusting a black in control.

... but the whole concept of the bradley effect is based on non-presidential candidates. If you think all of that data is irrelevant then why would you think there would be a bradley effect in the presidential race? OTOH, if you do think its relevant, you have to admit these studies into the discussion, and understand that the bradley effect as studied in non-presidential candidates doesn't seem to be happening in the last decade. So either way you have to stop bringing up the bradley effect every time a poll is mentioned: pick a reason (no presidential data to go on!) or (non-presidential data is ok, but it was there and now its gone!). Furthermore, now we do have a black presidential candidate in Obama. In the primaries. The data from polling vs. voting on Obama shows a reverse Bradley effect. Read about the UW study I linked to a few posts up.

[copernicus 0]

... but the whole concept of the bradley effect is based on non-presidential candidates. If you think all of that data is irrelevant then why would you think there would be a bradley effect in the presidential race? OTOH, if you do think its relevant, you have to admit these studies into the discussion, and understand that the bradley effect as studied in non-presidential candidates doesn't seem to be happening in the last decade. So either way you have to stop bringing up the bradley effect every time a poll is mentioned: pick a reason (no presidential data to go on!) or (non-presidential data is ok, but it was there and now its gone!). Furthermore, now we do have a black presidential candidate in Obama. In the primaries. The data from polling vs. voting on Obama shows a reverse Bradley effect. Read about the UW study I linked to a few posts up.

I didnt read the studies or the data. I know people, and many absolutely will lie to pollsters about voting for a black man. Then there are those who will honestly think they will vote for a black man and then have remorse in the voting booth. Studies from liberal universities that fly in the face of common experience dont change my mind. A reverse Bradley effect? People will lie that they will vote for McCain when they really will vote for a Obama? Sorry, I dont buy it.

[vbnautilus 48]

I didnt read the studies or the data. I know people, and many absolutely will lie to pollsters about voting for a black man. Then there are those who will honestly think they will vote for a black man and then have remorse in the voting booth. Studies from liberal universities that fly in the face of common experience dont change my mind. A reverse Bradley effect? People will lie that they will vote for McCain when they really will vote for a Obama? Sorry, I dont buy it.

The reverse effect is driven by black people. It's the same process - they say they will vote for McCain, or that they are undecided, and then when they are in the booth they can't bring themselves to vote against the black guy.

[copernicus 0]

The reverse effect is driven by black people. It's the same process - they say they will vote for McCain, or that they are undecided, and then when they are in the booth they can't bring themselves to vote against the black guy.

I know what the claim is. But when 85% of blacks voted Democrat before this election, and now 90% say they will bote for a black POTUS, you really believe that a signficiant portion of that 5% is lying? Ridiculous.

[vbnautilus 48]

I know what the claim is. But when 85% of blacks voted Democrat before this election, and now 90% say they will bote for a black POTUS, you really believe that a signficiant portion of that 5% is lying? Ridiculous.

So you don't believe the data because a) you don't want to read the studies or B ) you feel that your anecdotal evidence is a better source to base your opinion on or c) all of the above?

[copernicus 0]

So you don't believe the data because a) you don't want to read the studies or B ) you feel that your anecdotal evidence is a better source to base your opinion on or c) all of the above?

a) I dont have time to read something that wont hold water. With the market situation Im working 16 hour days including the weekend. And this years bonus wont be Obama-taxed, so thank you in advance, Dems for padding my bank account.B) Given the results I KNOW my "anecdotal evidence" of 45 years of discussing race relations is a better source.

[vbnautilus 48]

a) I dont have time to read something that wont hold water.

I certainly don't fault you for not having time to read this stuff. It's not important in the grand scheme of things that you do. But "I don't have time to read something that won't hold water" is maybe the clearest articulation of closed-mindedness I have seen in a while. You can't know that it doesn't hold water if you haven't read it. What you are saying is that you are unwilling to confront evidence that may contradict a firmly-held position of yours.

B) Given the results I KNOW my "anecdotal evidence" of 45 years of discussing race relations is a better source.

You are wise enough in your years to know that your anecdotal evidence can't be a better source. For example, are your friends distributed evenly among all the states with high black populations? (this is not an effect seen in california, it is mostly in the midwest/south.)

[gobears 0]

I certainly don't fault you for not having time to read this stuff. It's not important in the grand scheme of things that you do. But "I don't have time to read something that won't hold water" is maybe the clearest articulation of closed-mindedness I have seen in a while. You can't know that it doesn't hold water if you haven't read it. What you are saying is that you are unwilling to confront evidence that may contradict a firmly-held position of yours. You are wise enough in your years to know that your anecdotal evidence can't be a better source. For example, are your friends distributed evenly among all the states with high black populations? (this is not an effect seen in california, it is mostly in the midwest/south.)

We'll find out in three weeks in any case whether there is a bradley/reverse bradley effect - it will be a long night

[CaneBrain 95]

a) I dont have time to read something that wont hold water. With the market situation Im working 16 hour days including the weekend. And this years bonus wont be Obama-taxed, so thank you in advance, Dems for padding my bank account.B) Given the results I KNOW my "anecdotal evidence" of 45 years of discussing race relations is a better source.

AH, arguing is so much easier when your brain automatically assumes it knows more than elitist things like "studies" and "evidence". Because personal thoughts and experiences are so much more devoid of bias.....

[copernicus 0]

. You are wise enough in your years to know that your anecdotal evidence can't be a better source. For example, are your friends distributed evenly among all the states with high black populations? (this is not an effect seen in california, it is mostly in the midwest/south.)

Its not just "friends", its friends, family and hundreds of business associates over 35 years...probably a larger sample than the studies used, lol. You seem to think people are materially different with regard to race relations in different regions. to the extent that there are differences, many of those more likely to exhibit the Bradley effect are in the swing states.There is a huge difference between overt discrimination and unspoken feelings of unease and the fear of being seen as racist if you express that unease that is part of the conditioning in the US.Lets make a little wager. We'll take all states that poll as less than a 10% lead for either candidate in their last pre-election poll. For each of those states with actual results 3% or more less favorable to Obama than the poll you pay me $50, for each with results between 2.9% less favorable and 2.9% more favorable to Obama than the polls its a draw, and for those that are 3%+ more favorable to Obama, I'll pay you $50. We'll agree on what polling organizatin to use for each state before Wednesdays debate. (I wont agree to Gallup unless its the only major organization for a state, they suck in general).

[vbnautilus 48]

You seem to think people are materially different with regard to race relations in different regions.

It's just that the proportion of black voters is different in different places; the effect measured in the primary studies was not uniform across states.

Lets make a little wager. We'll take all states that poll as less than a 10% lead for either candidate in their last pre-election poll. For each of those states with actual results 3% or more less favorable to Obama than the poll you pay me $50, for each with results between 2.9% less favorable and 2.9% more favorable to Obama than the polls its a draw, and for those that are 3%+ more favorable to Obama, I'll pay you $50. We'll agree on what polling organizatin to use for each state before Wednesdays debate. (I wont agree to Gallup unless its the only major organization for a state, they suck in general).

LOL, this is a good idea. I agree in principle, but let me take a look at how many states are in that 10% zone and which ones are likely to show reverse-bradley to see if I can afford the stakes you've proposed if things go all-bradley, and check on some of the details (e.g. what kind of deviation is significant).

[vbnautilus 48]

OK Copernicus, how about this. I suggest we use the Rasmussen polls, they seem to be pretty well respected and neutral. The state polls have a sampling error +/- 3% for a 95% confidence interval. There are currently about 18 states where races are within 10%, so we would only expect about one of these to be off my more than 3% by chance alone. Let's do $25 for each state that varies more 3 percentage points from the final Rasumussen state poll. Margin of victory is the important number (easier to achieve) or percentage voting for Obama (harder to achieve)?

[copernicus 0]

OK Copernicus, how about this. I suggest we use the Rasmussen polls, they seem to be pretty well respected and neutral. The state polls have a sampling error +/- 3% for a 95% confidence interval. There are currently about 18 states where races are within 10%, so we would only expect about one of these to be off my more than 3% by chance alone. Let's do $25 for each state that varies more 3 percentage points from the final Rasumussen state poll. Margin of victory is the important number (easier to achieve) or percentage voting for Obama (harder to achieve)?

does Rasmussen hit them all? If so thats fine. Margin of victory was what I envisioned.

[brvheart 1,752]

OK Copernicus, how about this. I suggest we use the Rasmussen polls, they seem to be pretty well respected and neutral. The state polls have a sampling error +/- 3% for a 95% confidence interval. There are currently about 18 states where races are within 10%, so we would only expect about one of these to be off my more than 3% by chance alone. Let's do $25 for each state that varies more 3 percentage points from the final Rasumussen state poll. Margin of victory is the important number (easier to achieve) or percentage voting for Obama (harder to achieve)?

Zogby is the only major pollster who got the last election correct, and he has been correct for the last like 3 or 4.he gained more national attention in the 1996 Presidential election when his final poll came within a tenth of a point of the actual result. Zogby also correctly polled the cliffhanger result of the 2000 presidential election won narrowly by George W. Bush, in contrast to most other pollsters who had expected Bush to win easily.Despite his personal prediction, Zogby's final poll showed Bush with a one point lead over Kerry.[2] Zogby later released a "mea culpa" in which he stated "I will do better next time: I will just poll, not predict."[3]In 2006, Zogby phone polling correctly called all 10 competitive United States Senate races and nailed the exact margin in the three closest races.

[brvheart 1,752]

If you guys lose this one it will be SUPER hilarious to see the reactions. Did anyone see that HBO documentary on Air America? That is classic awesome. It shows the behind the scenes stuff with people crying and what-not... it's totally awesome... and if McCain pulls this out... it will be that, times 10.Obama 49, McCain 47... margin of error 3

[copernicus 0]

If you guys lose this one it will be SUPER hilarious to see the reactions. Did anyone see that HBO documentary on Air America? That is classic awesome. It shows the behind the scenes stuff with people crying and what-not... it's totally awesome... and if McCain pulls this out... it will be that, times 10.Obama 49, McCain 47... margin of error 3

Thats dated 10/14, so its a bit out of date. Things tightened up in Rasmussen before the debate also, both nationally and in Ohio.Does this election depend on where the Dow is on 11/3?

[brvheart 1,752]

Thats dated 10/14, so its a bit out of date. Things tightened up in Rasmussen before the debate also, both nationally and in Ohio.Does this election depend on where the Dow is on 11/3?

incorrect. It's from October 13th - October 15th.move your mouse over the graph.