It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting,
may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
“The Nevada Senate election is really going to hinge on whether thousands of Obama
voters who haven’t been particularly engaged with this year’s election end up turning out
tomorrow or not,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Reid has a
higher ceiling of support than Angle and will win if enough of those people show up but
whether they will is an open question.”
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Of course you would think this.
Nothing you posted is proof...all speculation...come back with proof.
Polls are not meaningless.
They are the only check we have against vote fraud by electronic tampering.
RCP is consistently within tight margins of elections.
They are almost never off by more than 5%.
Their track record speaks for itself.
LAS VEGAS (BNO NEWS) -- All election results from polling stations in Nevada have been significantly delayed because of a power outage, officials said on late Tuesday evening. The power outage happened at approximately 5.45 p.m. PDT at Schofield Middle School in southeast Las Vegas, resulting in long lines of people who wanted to vote before polls closed at 7 p.m. PDT. The power outage has since been resolved, but people were still waiting to cast their vote as of 8 p.m. PDT.
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by mnemeth1
Yeah, I hate Latinos.
I also have swastikas tattooed on my forehead and march around praising Hitler.
edit on 3-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)edit on 4/11/10 by masqua because: Uncivil quote removed
Originally posted by mnemeth1
RCP projected Angle to win by a 2.7% margin. They are almost never off that far. I could believe Reid actually won fair and square if the margins were within 5%, but 8% is just too much for me to swallow.
In any case, here's the story. Neither side's internal polls in Nevada were showing what the public polls were showing. And they weren't far off: Neck and neck but with at least some advantage to Reid. Both sides internal polling apparently showed results that were pretty consistent with the final result.
But in the case of Nevada at least it looks like the public pollsters really were missing a number of younger voters, Hispanic voters and just voters in general who, for a number of reasons, were much harder to reach. And those voters heavily favored Harry Reid. In theory, a pollster can still overcome some of that sample bias by controlling and 'weighting' for the different underlying demographic groups. But it looks like a lot of the public pollsters just didn't do that as consistently or as aggressively as they should have.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by links234
There were no lies, nor any misinformation submitted.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Nevada has been a scene of treachery for a long time! As a former resident of the silver state, I can assure you that questionable actions has occurred. For example, during the general election, the ACORN chapter in Las Vegas was found guilty of election fraud.
This chapter shut down for a brief time under the premise of " management changes". The SEIU, was also found performing questionable actions.
But many of you argue otherwise, then why did Harry Reid in FACT solicit to hand out free food in favor of a vote?
source: www.lasvegassun.com...
I've noticed you constantly use the same news web for your sole basis of argument. Not even realizing that your sources are very liberally biased. And thats fine, if you wish to continue your arrogance, that's your prerogative.
I submitted sources throughout this thread that would argue your point on the contrary.
I've seen you many times on other threads, not being able to answer the simplest of questions....You do on the other hand, way to much copy and pasting of other peoples comments and statements. I guess some just can't seem to conjure up a thought of their own?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Of course you would think this.
Nothing you posted is proof...all speculation...come back with proof.
I know, critically thinking is something I am prone to do.
It's a bad habit of mine.
I need to stop thinking about statistical probabilities.
I run into this same dilemma when I think about the statistical probability of a steel and concrete building imploding at free fall speed from some office fires.