- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2008 at 7:16 pm #587109
AnonymousInactivewalfredo – you say that the polls I am talking about are “off” by 20%, and, yet, you go on to quote polls illustrating that Obama is, in fact, ahead.
Why are the polls that I find inaccurate, but the polls that you are referring to, or count on, accurate?
June 3, 2008 at 7:17 pm #626128
AnonymousInactiveI honestly am just trying to understand better!
June 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm #626129
walfredoMemberNewRes- I guess I’m not saying it that clearly. There are two points- polls are generally regarded as indicators, not decision points. Especially for elections that are very far off.
I pointed to the fact that you can find widely varied polling data, usually around a 20 point swing for the same upcoming event just by looking at different polls. This to me, makes using polling as the decision of who a candidate instead of actual election results extremely flawed.
My second point, is that inherent in what is being said by the Clintons and to some extent the media, which you repeated- that she is doing better in the critical states and is a better general election candidate is flawed. Now, I’m not saying we use these polls to choose Obama- use the election to choose him. I’m just pointing out that he is doing substantially better in the same polls in a number of critical swing states- Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington State, Oregon, Georgia… To say that it is all about Ohio and Florida and they are the only states that count (as the Clinton camp routinely does) to me seems insincere, as they are not the only states in play.
I’m not saying one polls are valid, and some aren’t. I’m saying that the argument is very flawed that Clinton leads in the states that “matter” in the general election over Obama according to current polling data. And then more to the point, the argument that because of this inherent polling advantage the party leaders should coup together to overthrow the election and make her the nominee is extremely flawed.
June 3, 2008 at 8:00 pm #626130
AnonymousInactiveOk. Thank you, walfredo, for going into detail and explaining further.
My question now would be, wouldn’t it seem just as possible then for Obama to not be doing as well as some would like to think?
Since we are discounting Clinton based on the belief that some polls show Obama as doing better (and projecting he will do better against McCain in the general election), could we make the same argument reversed?
I, in now way, am trying to debate. I’m simply trying to understand better. It just seems to me, if the whole poll statistic is “flawed”, how are you so positive that Obama is so far ahead?
June 3, 2008 at 9:18 pm #626131
walfredoMemberNewRes- that is an easy question to answer. You are asking if Hillary Clinton were about to go over the magic number of delegates tonight, but Obama was within 120 or so- (reverse of reality) would it then be fair to argue that Obama should be given the nomination based on the poll results that I cited above?
The answer is of course not. That is what the election is for, to pick the nominee. Polling data, is for plotting a general election strategy. It is an extremely flimsy argument being made, and it is a method that has never been used in the history of primaries to pick a nominee…
Could Obama not be doing as well as current polling suggests? Of course, same for Clinton and McCain. No one knows… The polls are not accurate predictors of today or tomorrow, and certainly can’t look 5 months in the future. There are dozens of factors that are omitted in the polls being cited, including Nader and Barr. And the actual campaign over the next 5 months. Initial polling for this election after the first debate in September had Clinton at 55%, Obama at 20%, and Edwards at 13%… McCain was not in double digits at that time on the republican side, Giliuani led Romney…
I’m not in anyway positive Obama is so far ahead, and it will be a tough general. I am completely sure that Obama won the election that concludes tonight, and no one thought that was possible…
June 3, 2008 at 9:27 pm #626132
AnonymousInactiveOk. Thank you, walfredo. I understand. Thank you for being patient with my ignorance!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.