Utah Guns Forum banner

Do you trust the polls?

9K views 37 replies 20 participants last post by  AlanM 
#1 ·
Or. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

(This has to do with politics, but is not political)

Being somewhat of a political junky, I like to occasionally look at the internals of some of the public polls. Not that I get any grand insights into it, but I've always liked numbers and statistics etc.. I was looking at the Latest Survey USA poll from Ohio and saw something very disconcerting.

2% of those who have ALREADY VOTED are still undecided as to who they'll vote for in the presidential election. :bang_head: Shouldn't they be excluded from the gene pool, let alone the survey sample? I was looking at some other polls after I saw that one and many have the same type of thing. There's usually a percentage of undecided who have already voted. Doesn't that take them out of the undecided category by definition? :raisedbrow:

My thought for the night. There's a 2% chance that I'm still undecided as to whether this shatters my faith in humanity.

Matt
 
#3 ·
I never believe polls! The book, "How to Lie With Statistics" is something I always think about when it comes to statistics. It is too simple to create any poll so that its results mimic what you want it to say. They are too easily manipulated and much of this is in how questions are asked, as well as how direct the question must be answered regardless of your position on any subject. So, I do not believe them and at this time I certainly do not believe any polls out there concerning the numbers as concerns the Presidential race. Besides, we already know that the Democrats already unfairly, improperly, and with intent to defraud the public at large, just "crunched" their numbers to make it appear that their most recent poll concerning unemployment brought it under 8%. let us not be fooled and use that God-given intelligence to see through the smoke screens and the lies provided in polls so that we can truly study things for ourselves and create a proper resolution by studying facts over fiction/polls.
 
#4 ·
My wife was a math teacher. We have a saying. There are lies, there are <self filtered> darn lies, and statistics.
Give me 3 statisticians and a couple of hours, and we can prove the earth is flat.

Mel
 
#5 ·
They may have declared themselves undecided because they do not want to reveal their vote, and did not want the pollster trying to wrangle or manipulate them into revealing their vote. There are few feelings worse than being needled and cajoled into revealing what you do not know. For certain personality types that find it hard to say no, or disappoint others, this is magnified.

Alternately, a person votes early, and does not care to reveal their vote due to family members, coworkers or friends in the room who would overhear. That could cause awkwardness and tension where it is not needed. So, the easy way out?
Professed Indecision.

Last but not least, it could be just a contrarian deliberately attempting to undermine the poll. I could easily see myself declaring myself undecided just to mess up the poll, or make life more difficult for this guy who interrupted my activities to ask me questions that are none of his business.
 
#6 ·
morcey2 said:
2% of those who have ALREADY VOTED are still undecided as to who they'll vote for in the presidential election. :bang_head: Shouldn't they be excluded from the gene pool, let alone the survey sample? I was looking at some other polls after I saw that one and many have the same type of thing. There's usually a percentage of undecided who have already voted. Doesn't that take them out of the undecided category by definition? :raisedbrow:

My thought for the night. There's a 2% chance that I'm still undecided as to whether this shatters my faith in humanity.

Matt
The whole idea that there are people who will actually decided who to vote for based on the debates should finish shattering any faith you have in the U.S. voter. For me, deciding who to vote for is a process of examining a candidate's record and history, and (with a boulder-sized grain of salt) their statements. I then choose the candidate who appears to most closely match my ideas of the role of government. Character does matter some, but only to the extent that I think they will stick to the principles that are getting my vote.

The number of sheeple who thought Romney "looked presidential" in the debates, and then left the undecided category boggles my mind, especially since these "swing" voters decide elections. One of the liberal brainwashing machines (aka public education) has raised an entire generation to believe that elections are popularity contests with no real consequences. Yes, I believe student council elections are pure evil.

Political leanings aside, a candidate's television presence in a debate is a weak reason to choose that candidate, and that includes Romney, Clinton, and Kennedy. It's possible that some of those voters actually heard something of substance in the debate that swayed them and the other half of the brainwashing machine (the mainstream media) simply plays up the story they want us to hear. It's better for Obama if we believe that people choose Romney because Obama "had a bad night" instead of because they disagree with his policies. But I dunno.
 
#7 ·
I like the debates because I like to see how they react to things that are said, and when they are attacked. Does anyone have a link to Romney's details on his 5 point plan? The one thing that bothered me is how he never gave any details other than the bullet point. I'd like to read into the details a little bit more.

I do believe that all politicians need to stop the mind set of me and my party, and get back to the original mindset of what can I do to make our country better.

Get tired of nothing being accomplished because of partisan politics.

Sent from my mobile device.
 
#10 ·
bagpiper said:
diablokicks said:
Get tired of nothing being accomplished because of partisan politics.
I'll happily take gridlock over passing a bunch of unconstitutional laws, spending money on things not authorized by the constitution, or otherwise doing bad things.

Charles
This.
 
#11 ·
manithree said:
The whole idea that there are people who will actually decided who to vote for based on the debates should finish shattering any faith you have in the U.S. voter.
Shallow and non-informative as the debates are, I'd be thrilled if a few more folks would actually pay serious attention to them rather than casting votes based on mere party affiliation, race, religion, or who looked/sounded best.

manithree said:
For me, deciding who to vote for is a process of examining a candidate's record and history, and (with a boulder-sized grain of salt) their statements. I then choose the candidate who appears to most closely match my ideas of the role of government. Character does matter some, but only to the extent that I think they will stick to the principles that are getting my vote.
I try to mirror your approach, except that to me, character matters a lot, along with core convictions: both political and what one might call apolitical cultural, social, and moral convictions. Some of the biggest challenges a president faces are those that were not predicted or talked about. And regardless of what was said in a debate, or "on the record" in published plans, or even what may have been done in previous positions, how a man deals with the proverbial "phone call at 3:00 am" will be driven by who he is at his core: his character and convictions.

That all said, I'd prefer to have a man who does the right thing for the wrong reasons (say Clinton) than a man who does the wrong thing for the right reasons (say Carter). And getting to know a candidate's character and convictions can be difficult, especially for high national office; a bit easier in local offices where you can get to know candidates personally. But to the extent that I can get to know to a candidate's character and core convictions, they are important to me.

manithree said:
The number of sheeple who thought Romney "looked presidential" in the debates, and then left the undecided category boggles my mind, especially since these "swing" voters decide elections. One of the liberal brainwashing machines (aka public education) has raised an entire generation to believe that elections are popularity contests with no real consequences. Yes, I believe student council elections are pure evil.
As bad as that is, I think the real problem is that most of us simply vote our own self interest, most often our immediate financial self-interest. So the "47%" (and especially the 40% who are getting paid to file their federal income taxes) are likely to vote for the candidates (congressional, president, legislative, etc) who will promise to keep the money rolling in to their favored programs. The elderly and near elderly are not likely to support anyone who proposes changes in Social inSecurity or Medicare. The great middle class won't vote for anyone who talks seriously about taking away our much beloved mortgage interest or charitable contribution deductions. The rich don't tend to donate to the campaigns of those who they think are going make it harder for them to keep their earnings. (A few will support those who want to raise rates on certain kinds of income, while carefully being sure their money comes from other types of income.) As liberal as California has become, ask yourself the likely outcome of the presidential election if gas prices to spike to near $10 a gallon there and remain high for the next 3 weeks.

Our founding fathers pledged (and many gave) their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to form a nation. The "greatest generation" defeated Nazism but then came home and allowed FDR's unconstitutional social programs to become fully entrenched. Their children in the babyboom generation has helped spawn multiple generations who expect to live beyond their means. Don't tax me; Don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree...all while providing ever more government services.

Talk about cutting back high school sports (with their massive costs in land and buildings for stadiums, courts, and diamonds) and how many parents scream bloody murder. Suggest that schools don't need professional quality theater stages and sound systems or performance centers and the remaining parents get upset. Suggest tax increases to fund these and the childless rightly balk; while any talk of increased activity fees will cost you the votes of parents. Talk of raising gas taxes to cover the cost of better roads or even the cost of keeping cheap oil flowing and drivers get upset. Mention how much of a subsidy mass transit gets and the urban planning and living crowd goes nuts. Talk about local drilling and environmentalists are unhappy, concede that personal pollution really is a community concern in a place like the SL Valleys and conservatives get very defensive.

The easiest way to start a fight with a Republican in Utah is to get him talking about the evils of the dole and then after he is in full agreement, point out how public education is the single largest welfare program in the State.

You can do likewise with Democrats by getting them talking about the evils of laws regulating alcohol and how people should have personal choice and that religious values should not be part of politics. Then point out how imposing taxes to fund welfare programs removes personal choice and imposes personal moral (ie religious) beliefs by force of law. Ditto with how laws on the water usage of household appliances or outlawing 100W Edison bulbs remove personal choice and impose the personal moral beliefs (about proper environmental views) by force of law. Or even how anti-discrimination laws (be it racial, sexual orientation, or otherwise) likewise remove personal choice and impose personal morals via force of law. (What makes it inherently wrong for a Jewish business to limit clientele to those who keep kosher, or for a business that caters to homosexuals to decline to do business with those who preach that such conduct is sinful? )

Libertarians look to be the most self consistent, but really don't care to talk about the logical conclusions of their self-consistent policies including enforcing contracts for selling vital organs before you die, or what would be an effective inability to limit public nudity or even public sex acts.

Fundamentally, there is great diversity in how people think society should be ordered. In many cases these views cannot coexist and there isn't much room for "compromise". The best solution I've found is to support federalism with much greater diversity among the several States and people voting with their feet. Some States would be more liberal, some more conservative, some more libertarian, some more statist. A limited, enumerated (and thus agreed upon) set of fundamental rights would be respected nationwide (including freedom of speech, religion, and the press; RKBA; jury trial, attorney, right to remain silent; right to be secure in our persons, papers, effects; etc), but most everything else (including alcohol and other drug regulation, social programs, definition of marriage, abortion laws, speed limits, tax rates and what is taxed, laws on euthanasia/assisted suicide, age of consent, etc) would be left to local majority vote.

And then our presidential and congressional candidates' views on most domestic issue would not matter. Those things would be largely the purview of the States. DC would deal with foreign issues and the fairly small number of issues between States. But would do very little internal to any State.

Return election of federal Senators to the State legislatures.

And various States might give serious thought to exercising their constitutional power to shift election of presidential electors away from a popular vote and toward something like legislative appointment, while removing so-called "faithless" elector laws. Utah could have 6 electors, chosen by our legislature, who could get to know presidential candidates and cast informed votes. In turn, Utah and our issues might actually get a bit more attention because it would be a lot cheaper and easier for candidates to campaign to our 6 electors than to our 3 million residents.

Like you, and the founders, I have a certain lack of faith in popular elections. We have no choice to have government by the people. But some levels of insulation are warranted and in the case of federal Senators and president, a little more insulation is needed even as I think judges need a little less insulation.

Too long of a rant. And probably largely 0ff topic. Sorry.

Charles
 
#12 ·
diablokicks said:
Does anyone have a link to Romney's details on his 5 point plan? The one thing that bothered me is how he never gave any details other than the bullet point. I'd like to read into the details a little bit more.
Sent from my mobile device.
If details were given they would be publicly ripped apart or supported by all parties being affected. The details also all have to go through both houses to be comprimised, himhawed, pushed and pulled till unrecognizable and ineffective.
 
#13 ·
Absolutely everyone should be allowed to vote.

The problem is, we allow the government to do almost anything. If everyone was allowed to vote, and our government was only involved in core functions, or benign functions (i.e. funding a Navy, and selecting a National Anthem, or parade music), it really wouldn't be a big deal.

The problem also is, as Charles so profusely put it, is that everyone has demands on my paycheck, and wants restrictions on my rights. And yours, and everyone else's.

Give me your money, and here's a list of things you can't do.

It's a sick and barbaric mentality that sadly infected most of the world in the 20th century. Actually, it's a disease we've always had, the 20th century was just remarkable in how most of the world formally institutionalized it into large, all-powerful states.

So, voters still undecided and using the debates to help them decide? Just another symptom. The fact that anyone is voting at all is meaningless as no possible outcome is going to result in any sort of meaningful restoration of anyone's rights.

Prisoner's electing one of two wardens...and neither warden has any intention of setting anyone free. Sure, I don't fault someone for electing Warden #2, since he promises to replace our flea-covered mattresses, just as I can't fault someone for electing Warden #1, since he promises more yard time. I just have to shake my head, when people expect more to happen.

The only possibility of meaningful change in this country is a conscientious Congress adding additional amendments to the Constitution all in the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Amendments that further clarify the inherent rights of man, and further restrict the government.

And that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I'll be in my bunker...
 
#14 ·
bagpiper said:
Shallow and non-informative as the debates are, I'd be thrilled if a few more folks would actually pay serious attention to them rather than casting votes based on mere party affiliation, race, religion, or who looked/sounded best.
That would be a step in the right direction, but not a big one. If you believe everything Obama said in the debates, he's a moderate dem doing a pretty good job.

bagpiper said:
I try to mirror your approach, except that to me, character matters a lot, along with core convictions: both political and what one might call apolitical cultural, social, and moral convictions. Some of the biggest challenges a president faces are those that were not predicted or talked about. And regardless of what was said in a debate, or "on the record" in published plans, or even what may have been done in previous positions, how a man deals with the proverbial "phone call at 3:00 am" will be driven by who he is at his core: his character and convictions.
I probably overstated my case a bit because I have no problem with Romney's character, especially compared to that other guy. But being in Utah, I'm likely not going to vote for him.

bagpiper said:
Libertarians look to be the most self consistent, but really don't care to talk about the logical conclusions of their self-consistent policies including enforcing contracts for selling vital organs before you die, or what would be an effective inability to limit public nudity or even public sex acts.
I'm not entirely sure I would vote for the same Libertarians at a local level as I would at the federal level, but for now the best way I can see to get the federal repubs to actually be conservative is to elect Libertarians or libertarian republicans like the Pauls.

bagpiper said:
Return election of federal Senators to the State legislatures.
Definitely.

And back on topic, I don't put too much stock in the polls. Pundits can't even agree on what the poll results were in the Carter/Reagen race:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09 ... mber-1980/
Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September&#8230; And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107 ... back-myth#
The legend of Reagan's epic comeback is largely the result of anomalous Gallup polling...
 
#15 ·
I don't understand what is supposedly so wrong with a moderate swing voter waiting until after the debates to decide who they are going to vote for. These are people who see the values and the problems of both party platforms. Up until the debates all we really get to see of the candidates are vicious campaign ads and biased news reports playing carefully selected and trimmed sound bites. The Debates are such a key point for making this decision as you get 90 minutes or so of the candidates side by side, stating their positions with no editing. You get to watch them and actually read their countenance. Short of getting some personal one on one time with each candidate it's the best method remaining to try to get a personal measure and feeling for them. And unless you've got several grand to drop on them, you ain't getting significant personal time.

I actually take issue with early voting and vote by mail because it gives so many the opportunity to vote before the debates and thus before they get the chance to sit down and actually observe the candidates. (Plus I really feel there is a great value and significance in the act of physically going to the polls on election day). With the exception of overseas absentee ballots (which is how I had to vote 4 years ago being in Afghanistan at the time), no ballots should be allowed to be cast until after the debates.
 
#16 ·
gunsrg8t said:
diablokicks said:
Does anyone have a link to Romney's details on his 5 point plan? The one thing that bothered me is how he never gave any details other than the bullet point. I'd like to read into the details a little bit more.
Sent from my mobile device.
If details were given they would be publicly ripped apart or supported by all parties being affected. The details also all have to go through both houses to be comprimised, himhawed, pushed and pulled till unrecognizable and ineffective.
True, but with little or no details given it seems highly suspicious and makes it seem not well thought out

Sent from my mobile device.
 
#17 ·
DaKnife said:
I don't understand what is supposedly so wrong with a moderate swing voter waiting until after the debates to decide who they are going to vote for.
My problem with that is that most of those who I know of that do that are woefully uninformed and choose a candidate based on completely worthless reasons. Do all moderate swing voters do that? Certainly not, but my impression is that many, maybe most, do.

DaKnife said:
Up until the debates all we really get to see of the candidates are vicious campaign ads and biased news reports playing carefully selected and trimmed sound bites.
That's the problem. If you haven't seen anything but campaign ads and MSM sound bites, you're fairly uninformed, and watching a debate isn't going to change that. If we had the Lincon-Douglas debate format, maybe, but even then modern politicians can get away with so much prevarication (especially liberals) I'm not sure that would help.

DaKnife said:
The Debates are such a key point for making this decision as you get 90 minutes or so of the candidates side by side, stating their positions with no editing. You get to watch them and actually read their countenance. Short of getting some personal one on one time with each candidate it's the best method remaining to try to get a personal measure and feeling for them. And unless you've got several grand to drop on them, you ain't getting significant personal time.
If my only reservation about a candidate was whether she had the character to lead, a debate might help me resolve that, or not. But if you believe what you hear in the debates, Obama has been great for the economy, he's been a staunch ally of Isreal, and a deficit hawk and Romney is a bigger spender than Bush who thinks the U.S. auto industry should go away. Debates are a terrible way to find out where they stand on the issues, and that's a pretty important point for me.

DaKnife said:
I actually take issue with early voting and vote by mail because it gives so many the opportunity to vote before the debates and thus before they get the chance to sit down and actually observe the candidates. (Plus I really feel there is a great value and significance in the act of physically going to the polls on election day). With the exception of overseas absentee ballots (which is how I had to vote 4 years ago being in Afghanistan at the time), no ballots should be allowed to be cast until after the debates.
I'm with you, there. I think it opens up all kinds of new ways to vote fraudulently. But I haven't looked into thoroughly.
 
#18 ·
That's the problem. If you haven't seen anything but campaign ads and MSM sound bites, you're fairly uninformed, and watching a debate isn't going to change that. If we had the Lincon-Douglas debate format, maybe, but even then modern politicians can get away with so much prevarication (especially liberals) I'm not sure that would help.
And exactly how are you supposed to get informed? The Candidate's web pages? That works for some, but people learn differently. Many need the visual/audio inputs to be really able to take in the points. Otherwise the Candidate and party web pages are basically the same as visiting the Media source of your preference. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS etc... for the Demos, Fox for the conservatives. I don't trust random blogs or minor media any more than I do the mainstream media, they all have their biases.

If my only reservation about a candidate was whether she had the character to lead, a debate might help me resolve that, or not. But if you believe what you hear in the debates, Obama has been great for the economy, he's been a staunch ally of Isreal, and a deficit hawk and Romney is a bigger spender than Bush who thinks the U.S. auto industry should go away. Debates are a terrible way to find out where they stand on the issues, and that's a pretty important point for me.
Only if you believed everything Obama said would you have heard only that. Funny thing was there was another candidate on the stage who stated quite frequently just the opposite. Now I already liked Romney so I can't say without bias that he stated his position better and presented himself better, but I feel he did and thus was swayed even more (if possible which I doubt) into Romney's camp.

Now take an undecided voter, who feels that Romney presented himself better in the three debates and you now have a Romney voter, it could go the other way as well, but so far the polls indicate that the swing has been decidedly for Romney.

Another key point on the Debates is the Presidential look. When Kennedy was elected a key turning point was the debates, specifically the first televised debate. Those who listened to the debate on the radio as they'd done for decades thought his opponent won, but those who watched it thought overwhelmingly that Kennedy was the winner. This is a visual age, visual is critical.
 
#19 ·
manithree said:
I'm not entirely sure I would vote for the same Libertarians at a local level as I would at the federal level, but for now the best way I can see to get the federal repubs to actually be conservative is to elect Libertarians or libertarian republicans like the Pauls.
Agreed. I'd support a much more libertarian federal government. Locally, a few areas of public policy could stand to be more libertarian, but for me personally, I want a traditionally conservative environment here in Utah.

My only big beef with RP is I think his foreign policy view goes too far in the isolationism view, especially so long as we depend on (foreign) oil. But the president is not (supposed to be) a dictator, and tempered by a diverse congress, RP's views in the white house might be just about ideal. But he isn't going to be the next president. Though a 3rd party vote in Utah is safe not to risk giving our electoral votes to the worst candidate who might win. There has to be one advantage to having major candidates ignore us for being a safe State. :D

manithree said:
And back on topic, I don't put too much stock in the polls.
Ditto. It is really hard to get an accurate result even if you honestly want to do so. And it is really easy to create inaccurate results if you have any desire to use poll results to try to sway others' decisions. This year in particular, the demographics of who gets polled is the big factor. The 2008 election demographics were unique and not likely to be repeated this year. A lot more democrats, young people, and minorities voted last time, and a lot more republicans stayed home, than we might reasonably expect to see this year.

Charles
 
#20 ·
diablokicks said:
True, but with little or no details given it seems highly suspicious and makes it seem not well thought out
Or, carefully calculated to convey some general directions, but without so many details as to alienate any likely supporters.

My experience running for office a few times is that most voters start all candidates at 100% and then deduct points anytime there is a disagreement. Party affiliation can be a big disagreement. For hot button voters, disagreement on guns (RKBA or gun control), or definition of marriage, or abortion, can be worth all 100 points.

But most voters are more likely to support the candidate who never disagreed with them--even if he never really fully agreed anywhere, than they are to support the candidate who agreed with them 90% of the time but openly disagreed 10%.

If we started with all candidates at 0 and added points for agreement, that would be different. But despite what a few of us here do, the voters at large don't tend to do that. And so successful candidates tend to craft their message to those voters.

Simply put, our candidates and elected officials are really just a mirror of the electorate at large. It isn't "the government" nearly so much as it's "the voters" (macro level) that are the source of our problems in this nation. Collectively--if not individually among a few rare folks--we want to live at someone else's expense and beyond our means. We want our point of view strictly enforced with very little real tolerance for others' views or beliefs.

A somewhat less cynical view of the lack of details might be that good leaders often create a vision, but of necessity leave the details to be worked out by others. Reagan set a vision to win the cold war, and he did. A lot of the details that came out congress--the ugly deals that had to be made--were and are offensive to conservatives and probably not exactly what Reagan wanted. But the large goal was achieved. Carter was a president awash in details who go almost nothing done. Yes, an overly simplistic view with lots of specifics that might contradict it. But from a high level view, a reasonable example I think.

Charles
 
#21 ·
DaKnife said:
When Kennedy was elected a key turning point was the debates, specifically the first televised debate. Those who listened to the debate on the radio as they'd done for decades thought his opponent won, but those who watched it thought overwhelmingly that Kennedy was the winner. This is a visual age, visual is critical.
Which is why we have so many visually attractive singers who have terrible voices and get caught lip syncing along to "backup" tracks. If I want to watch dancers bouncing along to music that might be ok. But for actual listening to music, give me a good voice regardless of looks or body. It isn't like any of us are ever going to be with such celebrities anyway so if I'm paying for music, let's get a set of pipes even if Adele is not quite the looker that Brittany is or if Pavarotti is not easy on the eyes.

While I don't care for FDR's policies nor his deceit in hiding his physical conditions from the public/voters, he was am amazing politician in many regards; Even a leader in terms of moving people to action. But even today I doubt we'd vote for a man using a wheelchair. I understand Lincoln wasn't all that handsome.

What a shame that a man's height, hair color, and the cut of his chin play such a larger role in picking our elected officials than do positions, speaking ability, leadership, etc.

Yet again, I am often grateful we don't get as bad as government as we (collectively if not individually) deserve.

Charles
 
#22 ·
DaKnife said:
And exactly how are you supposed to get informed?
That's exactly my point. It has to come from a variety of sources, with a good dose of judgement thrown in.

DaKnife said:
Another key point on the Debates is the Presidential look. When Kennedy was elected a key turning point was the debates, specifically the first televised debate. Those who listened to the debate on the radio as they'd done for decades thought his opponent won, but those who watched it thought overwhelmingly that Kennedy was the winner. This is a visual age, visual is critical.
I think you're making my point for me. I'm not saying Nixon would have been a much better President than Kennedy, but there were substantive policy differences, and Kennedy got elected because he was younger, more telegenic, and didn't refuse the heavy makeup. To me, that seems like a dumb reason to elect a President, and is part of what's wrong with too many voters. Maybe we never would have gotten in to the Vietnam conflict if Nixon had accepted the make-up. You really think that's a good thing and not an indictment of the shallowness of way too many voters?
 
#23 ·
manithree said:
DaKnife said:
And exactly how are you supposed to get informed?
That's exactly my point. It has to come from a variety of sources, with a good dose of judgement thrown in.

DaKnife said:
Another key point on the Debates is the Presidential look. When Kennedy was elected a key turning point was the debates, specifically the first televised debate. Those who listened to the debate on the radio as they'd done for decades thought his opponent won, but those who watched it thought overwhelmingly that Kennedy was the winner. This is a visual age, visual is critical.
I think you're making my point for me. I'm not saying Nixon would have been a much better President than Kennedy, but there were substantive policy differences, and Kennedy got elected because he was younger, more telegenic, and didn't refuse the heavy makeup. To me, that seems like a dumb reason to elect a President, and is part of what's wrong with too many voters. Maybe we never would have gotten in to the Vietnam conflict if Nixon had accepted the make-up. You really think that's a good thing and not an indictment of the shallowness of way too many voters?
Actually Kennedy was elected because of voter fraud. This was proved however, then Nixon chose not to put the American Public through the uproar of a run off election and the costs such would entail. So Kennedy was sworn in instead of Nixon. Voter Fraud has been around a long time and is often provable, how we deal with it when it occurs may differ depending on the person - Gore and his antics vs Nixon and his concern for the people and the process in comparison to party lines and policies and procedures.
 
#24 ·
I have been polled twice in my lifetime at early voting and 3 times with those conducting exit polling on election day: AND No! I do not trust the polls or the poll takers.

Why? Because they had something like this as the result Candidate X got 43% and Candidate Y got 57% Yes they added up to 100%

At no time did my answer of "None of your Ding Dang Business" or "Why are you here annoying People" ever show up! :huh:
 
#25 ·
bltdonahue said:
The problem also is, as Charles so profusely put it, is that everyone has demands on my paycheck, and wants restrictions on my rights. And yours, and everyone else's.
And you don't have demands on our paychecks and want restrictions on our rights?

I think it's a really good idea for everyone to enumerate just what they think government ought to do, and at each level. Don't fail to list things just because they're "obviously" good in your opinion -- if we allow that, many of the things you don't think it should do would be omitted from others' lists for the same reason. What we'd find if we all did this honestly is that we all have pretty extensive lists. Except for the extreme libertarian/anarchists among us, but the consensus of everyone else (on both/all sides is that they're nuts).

I've come to the conclusion that my #1 political priority is states' rights. Let's get the federal government out of 99% of what it does domestically and let the states handle it. Then we can start the debates over healthcare and whatnot, but do it locally.

Which means that, to me, the polls are all but irrelevant, because the candidates and parties who care about my #1 issue hover around 0% -- and that's not some trick of statistical skullduggery (which, BTW, is overblown -- statistics never lie; the only problem with statistics is that people believe they understand them, but don't).

Irrelevant or not, though, I should answer the question and my answer is: Yes. I trust the polls, at least the ones done using proper sampling methods, because math doesn't lie, it doesn't make mistakes, and the major polling organizations know very well how to perform a proper poll. Now, that's not the same thing as believing that the outcome of the election will match the poll results, because polls do have margins of error, and many of the current results are within those margins, and because people change their minds, lie, etc. But the polls to provide a very strong indication of what would happen if the election were held today.

Unfortunately, Obama is going to win. I'd love to be wrong, but...
 
#26 ·
Of course the polls are rigged. Some more than others, some blatantly. I participated in two phone polls last week that were obviously biased. In the first poll, I was asked whether I would be voting Democrat or Republican. When I said I am an Independent, the pollster said "OK I'll count that as Democrat" and hung up on me. The second poll was a Mia Love versus Jim Matheson poll. Towards the end of the survey, the pollster made 4 statements critical of Love, and asked me which one I was most concerned about. I told him that I wasn't concerned about any of the statements because all of them were in my opinion either fabrications or over-exaggerations, and politely refused to answer the question based on the choices given. The call ended, and then about a minute later he called back and stated that his supervisor said I MUST choose an answer to the question to maintain the integrity of the survey. After I stopped laughing I told him nicely that he should simply delete my answers from the poll if that were the case, because I'm not going to lie to satisfy a survey's "integrity". Whether they deleted my answers or made up an answer to the question I will never know, but I do know with 100 percent certainty that the survey was rigged in Matheson's favor.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top