Have you ever noticed in the polls since 2000, whenever Dem candidate reaches parity, trends lock up

[Leopolds Ghost]

In what appears to be an artificial, completely statistically improbable dead heat cycling about the parity mark?

In state tracking poll after state tracking poll... hmmm? Ever notice this?

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. In other words, Dem momentum (on paper, as recorded by media/pollsters) abruptly stops

The minute the Dem reaches parity, i.e. begins to get as many votes (on paper) as the Republican.

Past that point the Dem momentum abruptly stops in the state polling in these "battleground states",
even when he or she is ahead 10% nationally.

And did I mention the "battleground states" where this occurs are always the same.

Anyone with a basic understanding of calculus knows how impossible this is since parity between
Dem and Republican is *not* an input variable checking voter choices. Voters do not say "I would
consider voting for Obama but he's already 50-50 with McCain so I'll play it safe and vote McCain
to keep it even." Only the media and, interestingly, the machines -- and the party identification
samples used by the exit polling and pre-election polling firms that broadly count fewer or more
Republicans in the sample depending on how well the candidates are percieved to be doing by the
people paying the pollster -- do this.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Here's an example:

Note that the polls begin to cycle around parity BEFORE 50% is reached, i.e. it's not simply that one candidate has
reached the magic number of 50% or that 50% just happens to be the number of voters who will never vote for the Dem.



Here's another example of statistically improbable cycling around the parity point:

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. These graphs are statistical evidence of election (poll returns) manipulation

In "battleground states" set up and designed to be red or blue "by a hair" when all is said and done.

[LaPera]

3. Rove/Corporate republicans own & control polls-Don't go by polls-Work against vote stealing

voter purging and republican owned electronic voting machines, exposing the cheating republicans instead.

Because the polls as always will have their candidate (McCain) somehow, some bullshit way, within 3 or 4 points in the "polls" on election day.....close enough to steal....AGAIN!

[Arctic Dave]

5. Excellent points.

I do believe as some Duer point out that it becomes necessary for the media to control the race so they can control their viewership and sales fees.

[ddeclue]

6. Not this time. Obama is up 11% 52-42

and is leading outside of MOE in all the battleground states.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. The polls I posted are current -- it seems they've just moved the goalposts

For which races need to be manipulated to keep it too close to call. FL, MO, MN(!) OH, NC.

The remainder they are hoping to mask vote fraud by a campaign of
racial fearmongering so they can say "nobody could have predicted
a backlash by the silent majority who were unprepared to accept a
figure such as Obama."

Note how the minute McCain cedes a state, the "tied up" polls suddenly untie themselves in Obama's favor.

[anigbrowl]

8. Logically, that would follow if he stops campaigning and buying TV ads

ANY contest is more had-fought when the score is tied than when it one side has a clear lead. Watch a baseball game or something that's tied in the 9th inning and you're pretty much guaranteed more competitive play. I don't buy your theory since you're focusing on the most closely-fought states and then generalizing from those.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. You're not explaining why the score is tied in every such state in the first place year after year

Nor why it goes from Red to Tied in new battleground states, but it goes from Blue to Red in states trending the other way.

People do NOT NATURALLY GRAVITATE to the candidate who is one point behind in the polls to "even it up."

Nor do they STOP changing sides when the candidate with the momentum pulls even!!!

[anigbrowl]

10. I don't think it is tied in every state as you say

As I said, it seems to me you're looking at the closely-fought states and generalizing from those.