BS: The ups and downs of polls

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:36 AM

Shut them down and bring the troops home. See my response on the other thread to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:14 AM

Gigi:

Barack Obama was asked on The View what his first three major actions would be. Sorting out how to get the empire to withdraw, at least insofar as Iraq is concerned, was the first item on his list. See my question in the other thread.

He didn't address the question of other bases -- Korea, Germany, etc., etc. What's your plan on that front?




A

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM

Yes, EmmaB, that's it. IMO, it is the most credible because it isn't looking to measure just the transitory. It would be a rough equivalent to that polling that is done every few years in Europe, the name of which fails me right now.

It shows a much more realistic "snapshot" of where Americans are at on a number of values and opinions, including the very best polling research on American values in religion and politics.

The thing I fear most with the Obama supporters is, they are as blindly loyal to Obama, as Bush's Republican counterparts were when he first came to power. And that is just a frightening scenario, regardless of political affiliation, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM

I like it a lot more when my poll is up.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:22 AM

This one?

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:18 AM

Here is the link to the latest Pew Research poll on the presidential race, for those who are interested:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/779/obama-weathers-the-wright-storm-clinton-faces-credibility-problem

The thing is, all three candidates are running for the prize of the Imperial President. All three candidates will continue the imperial wars. Neither major party's elected officials, or it's grassroots constituents are asking of these candidates "Why can't an empire withdraw?" or "What rewards or protection does the US public get from having bases and troops around the world?" or "Why does the US public feel more secure possessing thousands of nuclear weapons and aircraft unmatched by any other power?"

Nothing will change until the American people AND it's politicians challenge the assumptions and status quo of the US military
empire. Nothing. Not Obama, not any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:26 AM

The polls are always thus during the US horse race season. It is about generating heat (advertising, ratings, etc for MSM), not light.

As to the mud slinging, honestly, what a bunch of thin skinned whiners. Suddenly politics in America is full of sweet smelling delicate flowers, and we aren't supposed to engage in critical debating?

What a crock of shit, I say.

As to what polling do I pay attention to--the Pew Research polls. They go deeper than the current mood of the minute, and the whimsy of voters blowing in the wind.

I too, wish to see a more progressive US, but I know it will not happen at the level of the presidency, because it never does. The way I view this election cycle is, with all 3 of the current mainstream party candidates, that the next president of the US will look like John Majors did to Margaret Thatcher.

The mood of the country hasn't shifted significantly enough to see Republicans decisively swept from power, the way Blair & Labor did when they won those few years back.

The other thing that must be understood is the corporate plutocracy that now has it's stranglehold on most the Western democracies, has corrupted the political systems of so many countries that elections in one country truly have very little effect. The status quo of the global corporate plutocracy pretty well has it sewn up.

Subject: BS: The ups and downs of polls
From: Emma B
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:13 AM

It seems as though almost as many contradictory polling results as mud has been slung around in the last few weeks of American electioneering in the attempts to boost one candidate by smearing and vilifying the other.

This interesting recent article from Pollster.com contrasts and compares the Gallup Daily series with Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll over the same six week period.

it concludes....

'First, there has been far more stability than change in the national Obama-Clinton vote preference since Super Tuesday, and that includes the period of last ten days. To the extent that we have seen real changes, they are barely bigger than what we might expect by chance alone.

Second, if you look closely, you will notice that the seemingly odd divergence between Gallup and Rasmussen since the Wright story broke is really not that unusual. It is comparable to similar separations in the trend lines that occurred around February 13 and February 29. Random variation will do that.

Third, and probably most important, it is far too easy to look at these rolling average tracking surveys and see compelling narratives and spin interesting theories from what is often little more than random noise.'

Distinct from the tracking polls are the 'panel surveys' which claim to be very useful after some major event.
CBS used them following debates/speeches etc to track which people opposed beforehand changed their minds afterwards.

On March 20th following Obama's speech they concluded -

'We found no sizeable overall change in Obama's rating after his speech, though there was a lot of internal movement. Fifteen percent of those who had a favorable view of Obama before his speech did not maintain it afterwards in the second interview. Twenty-three percent of those whose opinions were unfavorable also changed. Most of those who changed their opinions went into the "undecided" category, suggesting that the speech had given them something new to think about. Forty-two percent of those who had been undecided before the speech said they had an opinion after - but they were almost evenly divided between positive and negative opinions. The impact was greater with some groups than with others - women were more likely than men to move into the "undecided" category after the speech. Obama lost a little ground with independents, and even with Democrats. Republicans had been unfavorable before, and they remained that way.'

I present these figures not as a voter caught up in the fervour of campaigning but as a European with a wish to see a more liberal America merely observing some sophistry from the sidelines.