It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yeah I am certain that McCain/Palin are going to win.
Republicans and conservatives are the silent majority....they are not as apt to participate in polls, voice their opinions loudly, or vote early.
Also, there are some states that truly do appear to be "must-wins" for McCain. In each and every one of the 624 victory scenarios that the simulation found for him this afternoon, McCain won Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and Montana. He also picked up Ohio in 621 out of the 624 simulations, and North Carolina in 622 out of 624. If McCain drops any of those states, it's pretty much over.
Regardless of who wins, I think we can say for certainty that with the turnout numbers we're likely to see, the ol' silent majority is going to make itself heard loudly Tuesday night.
Originally posted by Jemison
The most accurate poll in the 2000 and 2004 elections was the IDB/TIPP pole as mentioned by a previous poster. Here is the link:
With numbers as close as they are (46.7% Obama, 44.6% McCain and 8.7% unsure), it seems very odd that people are writing McCain off as the loser.
It really smells like the media is playing a pivotal role in electing Obama simply by giving off the impression that Obama has won and a vote for McCain won't matter anyway.
That's right ... IBD/TIPP has John McCain ahead 74-22 among 18-24 year olds. Who knew the kids were groovin' on J-Mac these days?
IBD/TIPP puts an asterisk by this result, stipulating that "Age 18-24 has much fluctuation due to small sample size".
My guess is that it's some combination of the two -- that, for instance, IBD/TIPP is applying a very stringent likely voter model that removes you from the sample if you haven't voted in the past two elections, which would rule a great number of 18-24 year olds out.
A pollster could get away with a turnout model like that in 2004 (when IBD/TIPP did well in estimating the national popular vote), when the split in the youth vote was relatively small between John Kerry and George W. Bush. They can't get away with that this year, when the split is much larger.
But the basic takeaway is this: you should absolutely not assume that just because someone has published a poll, they have any particular idea what they're doing. Pollsters should be treated as guilty until proven otherwise.
My question is, does anyone think there could potentially be riots if Obama wins? I have noticed that people either LOVE him or HATE him. I rarely see middle ground on this. Which tells me either way, win or lose, there will be trouble.
Let me read you part four of this latest anonymous post from an Obama campaign worker. This is a different one than Sarah P. from yesterday. This is a long post it reads...
"I'm just going to read you this one point, number four. The Bradley Effect. Do not believe these public polls for a second. I just went over our numbers, found that we have next to no chance --" this is regarding Obama, "--
in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain but it's too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa are the true toss-up states.
The only two of these the Obama campaign feels confident are Iowa and New Mexico, but now Obama's headed back to Iowa on Monday.
The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we in the Obama campaign tend to take a ten-point percentage in allowing for this, a minus ten-point percentage for allowing this and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark.
That is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania. This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us. What truly bothers the Obama campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% refuse-to-respond result. You can't possibly include these in the polls, but they are. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they're voting for. The vast majority of these responders are McCain supporters. Obama is the hip choice and we all know it,"
"As part of my research duties I scour right-wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a feel as to what's being talked about on the other side. Much of it's nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters.
A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right-wing sites such as RedState.com. "
"What is not mentioned or reported is not the underreported cell phone users or young voters we hear so much about. What's underreported is you, the American people.
That's underreported. I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin.
I'll never agree with her on anything. I'll probably never vote for her, but I'm embarrassed at what's happened. I can't ignore our own hand in all this.
What I do know is I'm not voting Obama this time around. Treat that as you will."
Yet another anonymous poster from the Obama campaign to go with Sarah P. from yesterday that was on HillBuzz. And, by the way, Sarah P. is back. She's got another one today, and there are additional posts like this. Now, you might be saying, "Rush, are you sure this is not a setup?" Well, tell me something.
I share this stuff with you. I tell you it comes from the Obama campaign, disaffected female members of the Obama campaign.
Does it depress you? Does it inspire you not to vote, or does it do the opposite?
What could be in it for Obama to have people going on websites putting this stuff out? I can't think of anything. If you can, let me know.