OWED TO POLLOCKS

Notice that the bulk of the polls show Obama with a substantial lead. Even Fox News shows Obama with a decent lead.

The polls that show the race to be close are few and questionable.

Not that I care. I'm not sure I'll vote for the office of president this year.

If I do cast a vote for Pres., I may write in Joe Walsh. That is what I did in '88.

Joe Walsh has more awesome in his little finger than McCain and Obama have in their whole bodies.

http://ifreedomtrail.blogspot.com/2008/10/biased-polls-party-affiliation-part-ii.html


Party affiliation isn't something that changes frequently during a persons life. One switch is unlikely. Two is very rare. Just think about your own personal party affiliation. Did you register with one party for one election, the other the next, independent for a third, and back to the original party for a fourth? I'm confident that the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

And I am not talking about voting for a candidate from the other party; that happens much more frequently. One can imagine a bitter Clinton supporter voting for McCain in protest of how Obama treated her during the primary. But this person is still a Democrat and will remain a Democrat in all likelihood.

With that in mind, look at some of the shifts in party affiliation Survey USA polling is using this year.

Pennsylvania: D+5 in 2006, SUSA using D+19, 15 point variance

Indiana: R+14 in 2006, SUSA using R+1, 13 point variance

Nevada: R+7 in 2006, SUSA using D+6, 13 point variance

Colorado: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance

Iowa: R+2 in 2006, SUSA using D+10, 12 point variance

Virginia: R+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+9, 12 point variance

Ohio: D+3 in 2006, SUSA using D+13, 10 point variance

Missouri: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+7, 8 point variance

North Carolina: R+1 in 2006, SUSA using D+5, 6 point variance

In every case, the variance is in one direction--towards the Democratic Party. And just look at some of the differences. Indiana was +14 Republican in 2006 and now suddenly it is only +1? Pennsylvania is +19 Democratic now? That stat is always a balance between the urban left of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and the rural right of every other county. Ohio as +13 Democrat in what has always been a swing state. None of these are justifiable. Drummond comments:

I've looked at the publicly available records on historical election participation, 2008 new voter registrations, and the Census information on these states, but I can find no valid reason for such large and arbitrary changes in political affiliation weightings. I would therefore submit that the models being used for many of the state polls have design flaws, which threaten the credibility of their published results.

For the fifth time or so in the last few days, let me make this clear. Don't trust the polls. Dave at Hedgehog is panicking about an Ohio poll that shows Obama up by 14% in Ohio. Ludicrous. And when you look at the internals, now you know why.

Well TRC maybe if they quit using the term "scientific" poll the republicans could accept them better.....

Remember the "Democrats for Reagan"?

I do. He won in a landslide.

Is it your contention that that type of thing can't go the other way?

Get real, Keli.

I am, and always have been a registered independent with a long tradition of voting for people that were fiscal conservatives and social liberals.

That used to, more often than not, be a republican candidate.

Not any damn more.

TerryRC wrote:Remember the "Democrats for Reagan"?

I do. He won in a landslide.

Is it your contention that that type of thing can't go the other way?

Get real, Keli.

I am, and always have been a registered independent with a long tradition of voting for people that were fiscal conservatives and social liberals.

That used to, more often than not, be a republican candidate.

Not any damn more.

Well, my vote will cancel yours.

Well, my vote will cancel yours.

Read much?

ME: Notice that the bulk of the polls show Obama with a substantial lead. Even Fox News shows Obama with a decent lead.

The polls that show the race to be close are few and questionable.

Not that I care. I'm not sure I'll vote for the office of president this year.

If I do cast a vote for Pres., I may write in Joe Walsh. That is what I did in '88.

Joe Walsh has more awesome in his little finger than McCain and Obama have in their whole bodies.

Not everyone sees the world as partisanly as you do, keli.

You also avoided the question. There can be "Reagan democrats" but not "Obama republicans"? Is that truly your contention?

Here is one republican endorsing Obama, Keli:

Former Mass. Gov. William Weld to endorse Obama (linky clicky)

Perhaps the polls for Obama aren't as questionable as you would have us think.