U.S. Election Polls

[WIP]

There are so many poison pills being left behind by Bush&Co., like an "exit strategy" from Iraq AND Afghanistan, the collapsing U.S. economy, soaring national debt, soaring costs of Medicare, Social Security......and now it seems that they've put a bandaid on Fannie & Freddie, leaving the next president to figure out what to do about all of the foreign central banks that own about a quarter of their debt. Almost makes me wonder why anyone would want to be the next president:

Consider the description of the bailout from the: New York Times:

Investors who own the companies' common and preferred stock will suffer. Holders of debt, including many foreign central banks, are expected to receive government backing. Top executives of both companies will be pushed out, according to those briefed on the plan. [italics mine]

Now consider the following from MarketWatch,

The top five foreign holders of Freddie and Fannie long-term debt are China, Japan, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. In total foreign investors hold over $1.3 trillion in these agency bonds, according to the U.S. Treasury's most recent "Report on Foreign Portfolio Holdings of U.S. Securities."

[bush_cheney2004]

There are so many poison pills being left behind by Bush&Co., like an "exit strategy" from Iraq AND Afghanistan, the collapsing U.S. economy, soaring national debt, soaring costs of Medicare, Social Security......and now it seems that they've put a bandaid on Fannie & Freddie, leaving the next president to figure out what to do about all of the foreign central banks that own about a quarter of their debt. Almost makes me wonder why anyone would want to be the next president:

How dramatic....let's see what Bush&Co inherited:

National Debt

Osama Bin Laden

Saddam Hussein

Economic recession

Soaring Medicare costs

Insolvent Social Security

Enron Disaster

Downsized military

Gross desk in the Oval Office

[BubberMiley]

These markets are too thin to be accurate. I tried registering to trade but ran into all kinds of problems so I dropped it.

I have a strong suspicion that some Obamatons are manipulating prices (just as the Ron Paul fanatics manipulated Internet polls when he was still in the race). Dunno.

You need to update your analysis to account for the fact that Obama's stock has dropped 10 since the GOP convention. Perhaps you'll allow that there's something to it, at least until Obama starts to gain momentum again.

[jbg]

Latest polls show tie.

http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnN08441757.html

I would take each state's results and move 2% of the vote from Obama to McCain, resulting in about a 3-4% swing (depending on how many undecideds are in the mix). People are lying to the pollsters, in order to seem "open-minded".

I expect the same in Canada, where people will not want to seem to be "uncultured Yahoos" voting for Harper; in the privacy of the polling station many will vote differently than they indicate in polls.

[Shakeyhands]

Gross desk in the Oval Office

hahaha....

[Guest American Woman]

I would take each state's results and move 2% of the vote from Obama to McCain, resulting in about a 3-4% swing (depending on how many undecideds are in the mix). People are lying to the pollsters, in order to seem "open-minded".

They are, hey? And you know this ... how?

Furthermore, if they are lying, how do you know they aren't lying and saying they will vote for McCain/Palin in order to seem "open-minded?"

Edited September 9, 2008 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

Latest poll from the Wall Street Journal.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattle...from=blog_last3

For the second time in 24 hours, a respected national poll has found Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain in a virtual deadlock: The NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll puts Obama at 46 percent, with McCain at 45 percent.

On Monday, an ABC News/Washington Post survey put it at 47-46 Obama, with McCain having a razor-thin 49-47 lead among those most likely to vote.

[bush_cheney2004]

Latest polls give McCain the edge (and momentum)......

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20..._obama-225.html

[August1991]

You need to update your analysis to account for the fact that Obama's stock has dropped 10 since the GOP convention. Perhaps you'll allow that there's something to it, at least until Obama starts to gain momentum again.

I'm talking in relative terms - not absolutes.

Clearly, the polls reflect reality but with an Obama-biased tinge. How else to explain the 70% prices for Obama a few months ago? As I say though, dunno. I do know that Ron Paul had an army of Internet people logging on and voting. The current state of the Internet is such that a few hundred thousand or even a thousand can easily give the impression of a tidal wave.

Imagine what would happen if 100 dedicated Conservatives were to join this forum and post here frequently? Everyone would conclude that this is a Conservative forum.

I expect the same in Canada, where people will not want to seem to be "uncultured Yahoos" voting for Harper; in the privacy of the polling station many will vote differently than they indicate in polls.

The same is happening now in Quebec outside Montreal. Many people are reticent to admit in public to voting for the Conservatives. I don't know quite why that is.

I can only say that a secret, anonymous ballot is a critical feature of a true democracy. I have never felt comfortable in Canada with teh fact that our ballots are numbered and our entry to the voting booth recorded.

Voting, even in its appearance, should be more secretive and anonymous than a cash payment under the table. Ordinary citizens should see clearly that no consequence can ensue from their choice.

[BubberMiley]

Clearly, the polls reflect reality but with an Obama-biased tinge. How else to explain the 70% prices for Obama a few months ago?

I don't think he's gone above 66, but that's simply because, in terms of the electoral college, Obama still has the edge.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...bama_vs_mccain/

If you look at the map, even with McCain tracking higher in the popular vote, Obama has a better spread among states. Even though his numbers went down in the past week, he's actually become more competitive in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and even Florida. These states were recently leaning red, but they're grey toss-ups now. McCain's support is heavy in the middle and south of the country, so he'll get "overelected" in places like Texas, Arizona and the hillbilly states.

Al Gore showed just how easy it is to get the popular vote and lose.

[jbg]

They are, hey? And you know this ... how?

Furthermore, if they are lying, how do you know they aren't lying and saying they will vote for McCain/Palin in order to seem "open-minded?"

The "Bradley Effect" (link).

[Shady]

The "Bradley Effect" (link).

Don't you love discussing American politics with someone who has never heard of the Bradley Effect? Especially since it was so easily observed during the Democratic primary elections. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[BubberMiley]

Don't you love discussing American politics with someone who tries to redefine the Bush Doctrine? Especially since it was so easily observed during the past eight years. It's like talking to a retarded brick wall with his fingers in his ears.

[kimmy]

They are, hey? And you know this ... how?

Furthermore, if they are lying, how do you know they aren't lying and saying they will vote for McCain/Palin in order to seem "open-minded?"

Telegraph (UK): party insiders concerned

"Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters - something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain."

Maybe the Telegraph has an actual source, or maybe they're talking out of their asses, but it's certainly not the first time this has been pondered.

-k

[Shady]

Telegraph (UK): party insiders concerned

"Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters - something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain."

Maybe the Telegraph has an actual source, or maybe they're talking out of their asses, but it's certainly not the first time this has been pondered.

-k

Good catch. It was also discussed on Meet The Press this sunday with Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd.

[Riverwind]

Maybe the Telegraph has an actual source, or maybe they're talking out of their asses, but it's certainly not the first time this has been pondered.

I love how the Telegraph completely misrepresents the nature of the Bradley effect presuming that racism against blacks the reason voters lie to the pollsters. The real reason is most likely the exact opposite: i.e. white voters don't want to be perceived as racist so they feel obligated to vote for a black candidate even if they don't agree with his/her position on the issues.

[bush_cheney2004]

I love how the Telegraph completely misrepresents the nature of the Bradley effect presuming that racism against blacks the reason voters lie to the pollsters. The real reason is most likely the exact opposite: i.e. white voters don't want to be perceived as racist so they feel obligated to vote for a black candidate even if they don't agree with his/her position on the issues.

True, but it is even more complex than that, with second and third order derivatives. Then you have to add the "racist" voting dynamic for Obama simply because of race. In the end, Obama may lose simply because his "race" is progressive liberal.

[Shady]

With 50 Days Left, New York Is Far From True Blue

Obama’s Lead Falls to 5 Points; Down From 18 Points in June

Link

Minnesota Poll: Obama, McCain are dead even in state

Link

Obama's crashing in New York, and it's all tied in Minnesota now.

[eyeball]

I love how the Telegraph completely misrepresents the nature of the Bradley effect presuming that racism against blacks the reason voters lie to the pollsters. The real reason is most likely the exact opposite: i.e. white voters don't want to be perceived as racist so they feel obligated to vote for a black candidate even if they don't agree with his/her position on the issues.

The only perception a voter should encounter in a private polling booth is their own conscience. Of course this is the US election we're talking about so perhaps these people believe the voting machines they're using are not just recording their vote but are also profiling them or something. Do they use tinfoil in those things by any chance?

[Guest American Woman]

Telegraph (UK): party insiders concerned

"Party elders also believe the Obama camp is in denial about warnings from Democratic pollsters that his true standing is four to six points lower than that in published polls because of hidden racism from voters - something that would put him a long way behind Mr McCain."

Maybe the Telegraph has an actual source, or maybe they're talking out of their asses, but it's certainly not the first time this has been pondered.

-k

And they know this how?

It's all conjecture. The pollsters don't know if people are hiding their true feelings. How would they know if they aren't admitting to it? How would the Telegraph have a "source" if those being polled are "hiding their feelings?" It's not as if they're saying "Put me down for Obama so I don't look like a racist but I really won't be voting for him." And how would they know if they said they weren't voting for Obama it would be because of racism? Why would anyone think they can't say they were voting for McCain without the pollster thinking they are doing it out of racism?

No one has any way of knowing if people are "hiding racism" or not. It's all pure conjecture, and I really doubt if there's any substance to it.

[Riverwind]

The only perception a voter should encounter in a private polling booth is their own conscience.

Which is why the actual vote is different from the vote given to a polling firm calling someone at their home number.

[Riverwind]

No one has any way of knowing if people are "hiding racism" or not. It's all pure conjecture, and I really doubt if there's any substance to it.

Conjecture of course. But conjecture designed to promote a very specific agenda. i.e. if Obama loses it will because of 'all of those white racists' and not because 'his policies did not appeal to enough people'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Conjecture of course. But conjecture designed to promote a very specific agenda. i.e. if Obama loses it will because of 'all of those white racists' and not because 'his policies did not appeal to enough people'.

...and if Obama wins it will be caused by all those "black racists".

[Guest American Woman]

Conjecture of course. But conjecture designed to promote a very specific agenda. i.e. if Obama loses it will because of 'all of those white racists' and not because 'his policies did not appeal to enough people'.

Polls and election outcomes aren't the same thing though. As for myself, I'm an Obama supporter and I'll take the polls at face value, same as I would any other candidates'. I don't for a minute think people are afraid to say they are voting for McCain out of some fear of being perceived as racist.

[Riverwind]

I don't for a minute think people are afraid to say they are voting for McCain out of some fear of being perceived as racist.

You obviously don't understand the consequences of "affirmative action". For decades people have been told that they must accept racism and preferential hiring practices in order to correct past injustices and are made to feel guilty if they object based on principal. At its core the affirmative action philosophy is: "the job must go to the minority candidate if the minority candidate can do it and even if there is a more qualified non-minority available". It is naive to think that "affirmative action thinking" does not enter in people's minds when they are asked by a pollster who they vote for.