HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mayberry Machiavelli » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Mayberry Machiavelli

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 17, 2004, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 20,869

Journal Archives

Reuters/Ipsos polls: Can anyone explain how their online polling works?

Their numbers seem to be in line with other pollsters, but I see the word "online" and my eyes start to involuntarily twitch with Zogby flashbacks.

Does Zogby polls still even exist as an outfit?
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 10:29 PM (1 replies)

Polls: "Party ID" is to 2012 GOPers as "Land Lines/Cellphone" was to 2004 Democrats.

There seems to be certain things that are pervasive in the right-wing-o-sphere at the moment, to allow good GOP voters to hand wave or happy-talk bad polling numbers away.

The most prominent is this idea that all these polls (that show Democrats and Obama ahead) are wrong because the proportion of self identified Democrats vs. Republicans is disproportionately high according to some apparently arbitrary standard.

Here's an example from today, freepland - thread about Fox News polls showing Obama up in VA/OH/FL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933591/posts

Virtually every post is "what about party ID?" "Huh? Thought so! Bad poll!"

Here is the example of the "reasoning" - freep threads on this topic seem to often cite articles from breitbart on the "voter party ID breakdown" issue:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/13/poll-obama-up-5-in-d-11-poll

Not to get into the merits too much but it's my understanding it's fallacious reasoning because there's no reason voter ID is a fixed property of the public and should be sampled with each poll and not "corrected". The correction is just doing more polls and sampling.

I'm just curious who is putting this out, I figure it has to be either Fox, Rush, or Drudge. Does anyone know?

The other big one is to cling to "Reagan was behind right up until election night, THEN look what happened!" which I understand to not exactly be true, not to mention that Romney is not exactly Reagan and Obama is not Carter.

I'm even seeing that old chestnut, the Bradley Effect, being trotted out, even though it didn't really materialize for Hillary or McCain in 2008.

I think cell phones WAS a confounding factor of polling, just not as big a one as I would have hoped in 2004, and the fact that pollsters are calling cell phones now is a strong indicator of that.

Oh well, hope springs eternal and all that.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Wed Sep 19, 2012, 09:10 PM (5 replies)

"My job is not to worry about those people."

Easily the most damning quote. Easily made into TV commercials, web and print ads. Easily contrasted with Obama making a case to be President for red and blue America etc., and not just half the country.

Romney basically said that half the country can go fuck themselves because they are moochers and will never be on his side. A lot of these "47 percenters" who vote GOP will never feel that Romney is talking about them, of course he's talking about some poor black guy in Detroit as far as they're concerned, so I never expect something even as bad and obnoxious as this to end the race like some people seem to.

But the guy just comes off like the world's biggest entitled rich guy jerk, and that counts. Won't move the polls ten points or anything even though it should. But if the polls moved ONE point that might be enough. Or just were prevented from moving back in Romney's direction.

#!
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:24 AM (3 replies)

I think this race may actually boil down to real policy differences this time.

Instead of SwiftBoat B.S.

Obama and the Democrats bailed out and saved the U.S. auto industry, Romney and the GOP were foursquare against this and on the record about it too.

Locks in MI and OH and PA, possibly WI too.

Even with Bush out of office four years now, a huge majority of Americans including most Republicans (whether they admit it or not) know that being at war all these years since 9/11 has hurt America way more than any positives that can be argued. Hurt both in the economy and in our reputation in the world.

So despite any attempts to "Carterize" our president over riots, the bellicose neocon rhetoric we are seeing and hearing these last few days is not well received, nor will Netanyahu's call for us to jump into military action be.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:47 PM (7 replies)

A forum I frequent (where Sean Smith, killed in Benghazi, was a moderator) is ENRAGED at Romney.

It's personal because many knew this man in real life but most of us through the online world (he was an outstanding poster and moderator, there was a little piece on him at the end of the Ed Schultz show tonight), Romney's attempt to wave his bloody shirt in the cause of his own benighted candidacy is offensive on a deeply personal level.

Romney's pitiful efforts since yesterday have spurred tons of donations to Obama from members as well as stimulating a lot of indifferent folks who were going to go third party or sit things out to commit to voting for Obama and Biden.

I can't expect this type of thing would happen everywhere because it's a uniquely personal thing at SomethingAwful forums. But overnight the mood there has gone from pleasant bemusement at Romney's pitiful campaign to real anger.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:54 PM (16 replies)

I recently saw a clip of Romney (?2004ish?) saying foreign policy was reserved for the White House.

Something to that effect, basically saying Democrats should keep quiet and defer to the Bush administration on foreign policy since they were in power and the country should have a unified voice in the White House on foreign affairs.

I'm guessing it must have been around the time of the RNC but not sure, could've been CPAC or something else like that.

Anyone know what I'm talking about or can help find the clip?
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:27 AM (1 replies)

Bottom line, I think the conventions have gotten a lot of Dems out of the "both sides suck" doldrums

And underscored the gigantic differences between the parties and candidates.

I know they have for me.

That's why I think at least some portion of the DNC "bounce" will not be transient.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Mon Sep 10, 2012, 06:34 PM (3 replies)

Your right wing friends who watch Fox all the time: Who did they think would win in 2008?

I'm curious about this.

Were they SURE, or very confident, that McCain/Palin were going to win and completely shocked by the result? Or were they pessimistic about their candidates' chances but hoping for a long shot? And therefore not surprised by the result?

Despite spinning the candidates and issues, did Fox present the polling data in such a way to allow their viewers to draw the conclusion that their favored candidate was probably not going to win?

I felt that the aggregate polling data in 2008 showed pretty clearly that Obama/Biden was likely going to win even though I did sweat it right up until election night.

If this year's data was showing Obama consistently down, even if only by a couple points nationally and slightly behind in most key swing states like OH/FL/VA, especially as an incumbent, then I'd be expecting a loss though hoping for a win from a "long shot" position. That's a change from 2004 where I think I felt more optimistic about the outcome than I think the polling data warranted (all discussion about Ohio nonwithstanding).

I'm interested because now I'm seeing the freepiest folks around me clinging to articles about Carter leading Reagan right up until really late in the race, or stuff like 1992 Tory victory over Labor confounding polling and not just being cautiously optimistic but ridiculously confident of not only a Romney win but some kind of Reagan/Mondale blowout. And ignoring that while such outcomes are theoretically possible, aggregate polling has been pretty accurate in the most recent elections.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:27 PM (20 replies)

Mini-rant on Alex Bennett Show (drive-time program on Sirius "Left" satellite radio)

Sirius Left, for those who listen to satellite radio, is a pretty mixed bag in terms of programming.

It has some more solid offerings in the afternoon, like the Ed Schultz show, and it has Stephanie Miller in the late morning who is hilarious but whose show is kind of lighthearted snark and less substantive (although I think you can learn a little more about issues from it these days than in the past).

My beef is that the time that I'm most likely to listen, the AM drive slot, has the worst programming. It used to be the Lynn Samuels (RIP) show which was by far the worst thing the Left channel has had for reasons that have been discussed in other threads. Now it's Alex Bennett, who is definitely not as bad but in his own category of bad.

The problem with Bennett's show is it's just plain lazy. For a show on a politics talk channel, he just flat out doesn't keep up with politics. He's the anti-Maddow, he simply doesn't do his homework.

Even when things like the DNC are going on, he and half his staff haven't even watched half the speeches including most of the important ones. When important issues come up, it's pretty clear they haven't read up, done any simple web searches, and often wind up mumbling about stuff where they don't know the names of the important players and are not tight on the key facts, and half ass it through a half hearted discussion. Even when it's clear they are not on the mark on a subject they began discussing, they could easily look up the relevant fact in a flash on the web and bring up the correct fact, but they don't care and don't even bother (and I'm not even talking about when they are on the spot dealing with a hostile interview or caller).

Example, staffer mentioned that Bill Clinton's DNC speech only tied with the "Honey Boo Boo" reality show in ratings, Alex said that was probably only in reference to cable ratings and not all the various outlets showing Clinton, the staffer had obviously only glanced at some article or got some email or Facebook posting and was going off that, but despite the fact that he wasn't sure, still stuck to his guns. A 15 second websearch shows it was only CNN coverage of Clinton that tied with Honey Boo Boo, including all outlets obviously would beat it cold.

The end result is, Bennett mostly promotes a false equivalency "both sides suck equally" viewpoint on his show, but without much substance to prove it. It's an easy viewpoint to push callers into, and he pushes it with respect to the media outlets too, often promoting a false equivalence between Fox and MSNBC (he actually trashes MSNBC more than Fox).

It's annoying, and I don't know why they have him on. From listening to his show, apparently he used to write for porn magazines like Hustler and Screw, I have no idea what his politics chops are if any because I never heard of the guy prior to this gig. I really feel that they should put this kind of programming into a "Grumbling Malcontents who Don't Want You to Vote for Anyone" channel and put something better like The Young Turks, or anything, in its spot.

I did complain to Sirius about Lynn Samuels, as I'm sure many others did eventually leading to her show getting moved off Left after way too long, but I haven't felt quite as strongly about Bennett, I should probably register a complaint about his show too.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 02:04 PM (15 replies)

Looks like President Obama is getting a Terrorist Fistbump from the DNC, per Gallup and Ras.

Hope it lasts!
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:14 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »