Ipsos Poll: Democrats win over Repugs if election today...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://pollingreport.com/2008.htm


If 2008 election held today, who would you vote for?

Democrat...48%
Repug..... 44%
Other...... 5%
Unsure..... 3%

THIS JUST SHOWS THE LITTLE RETARD IDIOT DIDN'T REALLY WIN !!!!

[zacho]

1. Only 3% unsure

I'd figure that would be like 50% or so.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. haha. yes. but 5% is high for others -- that must be those of us

who are pissed at the Demo party. But it tells me that all the rest of the people who voted for Kerry are still out there, dissappointed, ignorant about the fraud, sick about the coming four years.

[femme.democratique]

15. 3% unsure? Are these people in a coma or something??? eom

[Straight Shooter]

3. Once again, Democratic over Republican by a margin of 4 percent

Just like Kerry won, 52% to 48%, if only they hadn't screwed with the tabulators.

I can't wait to see what these numbers look like in March, when Iraq has descended into utter chaos (worse than now), global investors start pulling away from the U.S., our Social Security is on the ropes, the public finally understands that bush wants to do away with tax credit to companies who provide health care for employees, and bush loses his temper at a press conference and breaks out in severe facial boils.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Yes, if the worst happens and chimp stays in, it will be

the only enjoyable part, watching him self-destruct. And surely the idiots who voted for him, some of them at least, will go "DUH" he ain't that great after all, huh. Some people actually voted for him just because he created this giant mess and just like a kid in a dirty kitchen, should have to clean up his own mess. Too bad millions have to suffer in the mean time.

[forgethell]

4. No, that doesn't follow.

First, the election is NOT today.

Second, these opinions come and go. You have to win on the day that the election is held, not 2 months later.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. It's close enough to show as an indicator that if * really won by

what they invented -- he has lost 6 odd points of support in just 2 months! Also, one month or so after the election, * support was 49% -- same theory.

[forgethell]

11. He may well have lost

that much support, and more. So what? He won, somehow or the other, the election and will be President for the next 4 years, barring some very special miracle.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. man, you should follow your own advice!

[forgethell]

38. What advice

did I offer??

[fob]

5. Incomplete poll! In bush*s amerika there are now 109% of possible

votes. Not VOTERS, votes. So there should be another line there;

Diebold.....9% (or whatever is necessary to counter real "votes")

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. lol only I really want to say COL (cry out loud) n/t

[Imajika]

7. Well...

..this certainly does not show Bush didn't really win.

Democrats have for years done better than Republicans on a generic ballot - though this is increasingly less so.

Still, for what it is worth, the poll is still interesting.

Though it is ridiculously early, I find it somewhat significant that General Clark is polling so well on the Democratic primary question. That should be heartening to the Clark folks. And, perhaps I am just missing something, but why isn't Dean listed as a choice for that question?

Thanks for posting it.

Imajika

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Yes, but coupled with B*'s approval below 50% - adds

weight to impossibility of election results, IMHO. Yes, odd Dean not there. I love Clark. I really think he would have done well - especially being against the war. He is sharp, articulate, and sincere.

[Emillereid]

13. Is there any reason an exit poll couldn't be done now -- maybe Zogby

could do state and national poll that simply asked people who they voted for -- I'm sure he could get voter lists that indicate who voted and only call from those -- that way he wouldn't have to worry about people claiming they voted when they didn't. But an exit poll done today should be just as valid as on election day, I think. Any reason why this couldn't be done?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. I love that idea! I wonder if anyone actually did a poll like that?

I wish someone would poll every voter in Cleveland !

[SicTransit]

18. Because people lie when asked who they voted for -

there have been several studies that showed it.

http://www.mori.com/mrr/2001/c010403.shtml for example

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Lie? It says "Not Recall". I can't imagine anyone not remembering

if they voted for K or B*

[SicTransit]

21. LOL - yes, in academic speak

the "inaccurate recall" is a euphemism for "a lie".

From the URL above:

"This phenomenon is not confined to Britain: in the USA, for example, where John F Kennedy won the Presidency by a tiny margin, the margin on recalled vote steadily increased during his term, and, after he was killed, some two-thirds recalled that they had voted for him.".

Do you think people forgot they didn't vote for Kennedy or do you think they lied?

Edit: typo

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. lol

[Emillereid]

24. We're not asking something they did ten years ago -- I'm sure people

could remember who they voted for just last November 2 -- people are still either mourning the event or reveling.

[SicTransit]

26. people do not misremember -

they lie. It's a well known fact. Post-election polling asking whom people voted for is not accurate.

In fact, according to some studies I have seen, if you polled today asking who people voted for in 2004 elections, you would see a fairly high skew towards Bush - it's called the "bandwagon effect".

I'd love for someone to do that kind of poll, would be interesting to see that "bandwagon effect" in action.

[Emillereid]

28. I doubt it -- I believe Bush's negatives have been going up since the

election. No honeymoon period according to some polls. That taken together with the poll at the top of this thread makes me think you wouldn't get any bandwagon effect -- more likely you'd see 'rats leaving a sinking ship' phenomenon.

By the way, it appears that a lot of the misrepresentation of the vote at the Mori link was due to people who didn't vote saying they did -- that's why a new poll would have to use only people who voted.

[SicTransit]

29. if you go and poll people by name,

going by poll books, for example, this will probably violate the "secret ballot" provisions of the election laws. And you will still not be sure whether people answer you truthfully. The "secret ballot" principle is there for a reason. Quite a lot of people would balk at having to disclose who they voted for.

[Emillereid]

31. Then all exit polling is in violation of the secret ballot rules!

Pollster actually go up face to face with real people and in fact ask them who they voted for -- they always have the option of not saying, lying, misleading you, etc. A new telephone or personal interview type poll doesn't have to identify people any more than the election day poll does -- and even immediately outside the polls you have to get demographic and other information. Other than something like Mr. or Mrs. X -- it's not like you're getting real personal with them.

[SicTransit]

32. No, because in exit polling the pollsters do not have any

idea who the person is - no name, address etc. In the kind of poll that you suggest - canvassing the precinct by going through the people in the poll books - the pollster would have to know exactly who the person he's talking to is, in order to know whether the canvassed person actually voted or not. And if you do NOT do it this way, then you will be getting lots of responses from people who did not vote but would tell the pollster that they did, in order not to appear civically irresponsible.

[Emillereid]

36. It's easy to blind this kind of data -- assign people random number

identities based on a random number table -- you could 'blind' the person doing the phoning. And have people ask for the person by first name or last name only.

Any way remember it is a poll -- when I was calling Ohio for Kerry we were polling people asking them who they were going to vote for and in the case of the absentees -- we asked them who they voted for. All they were to me was a disembodied voice and meaningless name. In any poll -- exit or otherwise -- some people are going to take offense and not answer. BTW, Zogby has no qualms about asking me all sorts of things about my voting behavior -- and he has my name, city and state, probably my street address and email info.

In my democratic party office we also called lots of absentees -- and if they had already voted -- we asked. 99.9% of people had no problem telling us.

The reason for secrecy in voting is so no one can actually oversee your vote -- and pressure you to vote 'their' way, etc. The secrecy is important during the voting process. It's not that the way you vote is some sacrosanct secret.

[Salomonity]

20. it's not an "exit poll"

By definition, an "exit" poll is taken at the exit from the voting place.

This avoids the problems of telephone sampling, figuring out who's likely to vote and means there are no undecideds.

None of these apply to a retrospective poll two months later. People will forget or lie about whether they voted, and for whom.

[Emillereid]

25. You still have to sample with an exit poll -- all polls have to be

weighted and representative of the whole population of voters. Also I said one would have to use lists of people who actually voted -- as a precinct captain I had such lists. I don't think you'd have to worry about either lying or recall issues -- and if so, it should be a wash for both candidates; random error that should affect both equally. I don't believe that Bush or Kerry have gained or lost any particular mystique in the past two months. Besides I take Zogby polls and he routinely asked who one voted for last and what affected that vote. However I don't think he's done one with 'actual voters.'

[Land Shark]

30. go door to door, using voter poll books

don't mess around with telephones. Just reproduce the damn election

[RaulVB]

14. Wait for the hacking!

It will give you the "actual results" of the next election...

Rethugs: 48%
Democrats: 44%

I am not joking, BTW.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. I know, sickening. The only way we can do it is maybe to

have a 15 point lead before the election. Then surely to God no one would believe that happened overnight. As it stands, Bush "won" Fl by 4 points and Nov 1 polls had Kerry tied or up by 5. So he gained 4 to 9 points overnight. Nevermind, we probably need a 20 point lead on Nov 1 2008

[Peace Patriot]

23. Local. State by state. County by county. Highly focused.

1) paper ballots
2) hand count

or at least

1) paper receipt for every vote
2) open source code

and

3) unaadulterated Exit Polls

[MoonRiver]

27. Don't you know,

it doesn't matter who votes. Power belongs to those who count the votes. And that leads US to our current predicament.

[sepia_steel]

33. Well,

at least they don't seem to like Jeb.

[malatesta1137]

34. exactly

and what is JOHN KERRY doing about it?

[fullfreedom]

35. I would vote Libertarian.

I would vote Libertarian all the way.

[Cats Against Frist]

37. I'm a libertarian and I voted Kerry and would still vote Kerry

the radicals in the GOP need to be stopped. They have nothing to do with any form of libertarianism, and I share no interest with them, whereas I share many with the Democratic party, such as civil liberties, the separation of corporation and state and environmental concerns.

If the stakes were not as high, I might vote straight Libertarian, because the Democratic leadership are such pussies, but there's no way I would have voted third party, when I had the chance to take out the GOP Civil Church of Mammon and the Fake Jesus.