Are People Afraid to Admit they Aren't Voting for Obama?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Are people afraid to admit to pollsters that they will vote for Romney?

I am old enough to remember the 1992 British general election in which all polls showed the left wing labour party to be in the lead. All polls running up to the election showed that the Labour party would have a majority in Parliament of between 19 to 23 seats.

Nonetheless, on the day, the right wing Conservatives won with 41.9% of the popular vote to Labour's 34.4%. This translated to the Conservatives holding 336 seat to Labour's 271.

1992 British Election Polling

The result was such a shock to almost everyone that questions were asked repeatedly in the national media about what was wrong with the polls running up to the election. This prompted the British Market Research Society to hold an investigation. It's results may have relevance to the US election.

The Market Research Society found that there existed a 'Shy Tory Factor'. In other words, a significant number of voters were unwilling to admit that they were planning to vote for a right wing party. The polling companies found this effect was strongest when people were telephoned or personally interviewed. Interestingly, the effect also existed with exit polls.

Shy Tory Factor

In light of the fact that this election has been one of the most polarized in decades and its racial undertones, is there a 'Shy Romney Factor' where people are unwilling to admit that they won't vote for the incumbent black civil rights lawyer but rather the white Mormon businessman challenger?

I suspect there is. I wouldn't be surprised if many Democrats and for that matter many Republicans are surprised when the voters real choice is revealed.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Nope. I did not vote for bammy or bommy. I voted for Gary Johnson.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


You have to realize that there are a lot of people that believe their choice of whom to vote for is no business of the pollsters. I always tell them I am voting for the Flying spaghetti monster or the Jesus candidate.

Let's also not forget that a portion of the Republican party does not support Romney and it will be interesting to see if they come to vote for Romney, RP, Johnson or whomever.

That may be why Romney is actually trailing....because he doesn't have the base excited. I know more Republicans that are going to vote Obama than will vote Romney!

That's sad...but it all rests on the shoulders of the GOP and their crap agenda. Tomorrow will be interesting and I can't wait until it's over!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


SAME EXACT premise floated during 2008...actually much more so since it was the first time an African American was voted into office.

All I can say is that if ever people were likely to lie to anonymous pollsters, that would have been then and no such phenomena appeared in the polling.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

You may be on too something significant with this. I raised this point in a thread of my own recently, and it brought about some discussion. Your example of the Thatcher 91 election is a pertinent one for the US 2012 S&F I will be watching to see how this thread develops.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Is this 2008?

Oh, no, it's not...just a recycled storyline right before the election to try to suggest the polls are wrong.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I think that asking people who they have or will vote for in any given election is not an accurate assessment of how people will actually cast their votes. I received many political phone calls asking me how I would vote and I told them either (1) I refuse to participate in your poll, or (2) It's none of your dang business!

I voted early, and on my way out of the building a lady asked me who I had voted for, to which I replied "That is my own business and none of yours!" However, since we are all friends here I will say that I did NOT vote for Obama. I just don't like pollsters, and I think a majority of people feel the same way.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotel1
You may be on too something significant with this. I raised this point in a thread of my own recently, and it brought about some discussion. Your example of the Thatcher 91 election is a pertinent one for the US 2012 S&F I will be watching to see how this thread develops.



Apparently the effect is weakest (if it exists at all) in Internet polls. People are not afraid to be honest on-line. Of course a poll run by a left wing or right wing source will introduce bias due to its biased readership.

I have been having problems finding real Internet polls from the last few day.

edit on 5-11-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Sounds correct. Obama will not get 98% of the black vote this time. Blacks are generally vilified if they tell anyone the favor a Republican, but jobs are the biggest issue so i bet he will only get 70% of the black vote and about half as many will actually vote. If Romney does not win by a landslide America will no longer be the land of the free.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
this happened years ago in Virginia. Limbaugh called it 'the Wilder effect' after then-gov Douglas Wilder. people being polled apparently were reluctant to admit they were voting against him.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Interesting that you mention it.

November 1 I posted this.


Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


My own reasoning?

Obama got 99% of the black vote before, he will get that again, but only 50% of that 99% will be voting. Also, the novelty, the newness of having a black president has worn off. I actually don't believe people (as a whole) are that racist, maybe biased, but not racist. So the caucasian vote will swing back to issues and not a "newness" issue. And Romney wins on the issues.

The reason why the polls are so tied? People just aren't being honest.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
this happened years ago in Virginia. Limbaugh called it 'the Wilder effect' after then-gov Douglas Wilder. people being polled apparently were reluctant to admit they were voting against him.

en.wikipedia.org...


A long time ago, didn't show up in the numbers and analysis in 2008 and it applies to exit polling...when you walk out of the booth and someone asks you who you voted for.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Interesting that you mention it.

November 1 I posted this.


Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


My own reasoning?

Obama got 99% of the black vote before, he will get that again, but only 50% of that 99% will be voting. Also, the novelty, the newness of having a black president has worn off. I actually don't believe people (as a whole) are that racist, maybe biased, but not racist. So the caucasian vote will swing back to issues and not a "newness" issue. And Romney wins on the issues.

The reason why the polls are so tied? People just aren't being honest.


Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008, not 99%.

And there is no indication that the black vote is going to be lighter this year than last year, just baseless assumptions.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Most of the current polls are polling democrats at anywhere from 11 to 18% more democrats then republicnas. Now, typically there are MORE registered democrats than republicans, BUT independents tend to be more conservative than democrats, so historically they tend to vote republican.

So all the current polls that show them tied or slightly ahead are slightly (albeit somewhat correctly) for Obama. If he is teid given an upwards of 20 ponit advantage in the pollsl,....it doens't look goof for him.

Reagan-Carter 1980 was the same way. It was tied right up to the landslide Reagan win.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed

Originally posted by beezzer
Interesting that you mention it.

November 1 I posted this.


Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


My own reasoning?

Obama got 99% of the black vote before, he will get that again, but only 50% of that 99% will be voting. Also, the novelty, the newness of having a black president has worn off. I actually don't believe people (as a whole) are that racist, maybe biased, but not racist. So the caucasian vote will swing back to issues and not a "newness" issue. And Romney wins on the issues.

The reason why the polls are so tied? People just aren't being honest.


Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008, not 99%.

And there is no indication that the black vote is going to be lighter this year than last year, just baseless assumptions.


2008 was last year?? You guys kill me... A lot has "changed" since last year.... Shall we discuss stagnant job numbers??


REgarding the OP. I think some of the independents who gave Obama an honest chance in 2008 may have some problems admitting that they were wrong in 2008 especially to the pollsters. Romney is surging with Independent voters right now and they determined the election in "Last Year"


Even in a poll heavily weighted in favor of Dems.


A new CNN poll that samples 11 percent more Democrats than Republicans yet has Romney and Obama tied at 49 percent has instilled confidence in Team Romney.

The poll seems to suggest CNN may have oversampled too many Democrats since the same poll shows Romney defeating Obama with Independents 59 percent to 35 percent.

To many observers, it is curious how CNN figures Mr. Obama is attracting so many Democrats to the polls in 2012 that they must over-sample them in the final poll by 11 points.

The CNN poll surveyed 41 percent Democrats to 30 percent Republican to come up with a tie race, which is a wider gap than has existed recent elections, including 2008, according to The Washington Examiner.

www.examiner.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Polls can be hacked and distorted depending on who is taking the poll; but bumper stickers, yard signs and T shirts don't lie. At least in my small New Mexican village it's Obama 4 to 1. What Obama lost in Black voters he more than made up for it with Hispanics; a huge committed voting block that Mitt lost with his "brown face" pandering to Hispanics. They saw thru his theatrics and found it insulting.

I voted for our exgov. Gary Johnson. He used to be GOP but had an epiphany and switched to a thinking mans party...the Libertarians as have many Republicans; including myself.

And as I eves drop among my business associates and their political banter; most of them I would consider conservative, but they are afraid of Romney and his warlike stance on foreign affairs. They're sick of war and are leaning to the Libertarian side as are many Democrats.

Interesting times in the political circus....are you going to eat that piece of toast?

edit on 5-11-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I never thought that polls were accurate. I am sure in some places, people voting for anyone other than obama lie and say they vote for him to save face, or not get beat up. I am sure there are places that people voting for anyone other than romney are lieing for the same reason.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Not me. I voted for Gary Johnson and am proud of. Some people might say I am throwing away my vote but I feel if I voted for either of the Big 2 that I would be throwing my country away. I prefer the former.





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join