Didn't happen under Clinton. I suggest that you stow the Republican fear mongering and decide based on facts and policies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Big Mac pulls even in fresh AP Poll, read it and weep Pinko Bitches
- Thread starter William Rennick
- Start date
Didn't happen under Clinton. I suggest that you stow the Republican fear mongering and decide based on facts and policies.
What do you guys find to be the most accurate polling? Or is it just a crapshoot at best?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_102208.html
ABC News/Washington Post poll October 21: Obama ahead by 11 points: 54-43
ABC News/Washington Post poll October 21: Obama ahead by 11 points: 54-43
Quote from Rtrader2525:
What do you guys find to be the most accurate polling? Or is it just a crapshoot at best?
In the last election INTRADE picked correctly all 50 states, something no other poll did. INTRADE is not a poll, rather it is a futures market where real money is at stake.
It also picked all senate races correctly in the 2006 elections.
Seneca
A new poll was released earlier today by the Associated Press that seemed to make imply that the race was tightening on a national scale. The Associated Press said:
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
AmericaBlog looked over the methodology, however, and a found that the poll skewed far too heavily in favor of Evangelical Christians. Click here for the complete breakdown:
The problem? In 2004, evangelicals/born-again Christians made up 23% of voters. But that same group makes up 44% of likely voters in AP's poll released today. That's almost double the number - it's totally implausible.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
AmericaBlog looked over the methodology, however, and a found that the poll skewed far too heavily in favor of Evangelical Christians. Click here for the complete breakdown:
The problem? In 2004, evangelicals/born-again Christians made up 23% of voters. But that same group makes up 44% of likely voters in AP's poll released today. That's almost double the number - it's totally implausible.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/new-flawed-ap-poll-claims-mccain-and.html
This is an oline poll that you must register to vote, and the shear numbers preclude the likelyhood of much cheating:Quote from Rtrader2525:
What do you guys find to be the most accurate polling? Or is it just a crapshoot at best?
Click on a "Vote" button and then "Skip this week's vote and view results".
As of right now this week's poll has been running for 5 days:
McCain 55% - 98,048 - 416 electoral votes
Obama 43% - 75,484 - 122 electoral votes
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/17/aol-straw-poll-oct-17-24/
Quote from Gord:
This is an oline poll that you must register to vote, and the shear numbers preclude the likelyhood of much cheating:
Click on a "Vote" button and then "Skip this week's vote and view results".
As of right now this week's poll has been running for 5 days:
McCain 55% - 98,048 - 416 electoral votes
Obama 43% - 75,484 - 122 electoral votes
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/17/aol-straw-poll-oct-17-24/
416 electoral votes ? that sounds "real". Did you have any sleep for the last 5 days ? I can picture you creating accounts non stop and "voting" for McCain. You channel Kudlow's delusional optimism With Hannity's abject moron(ism).
It's just a poll - about as useful as any other. But it is interesting because of its size.Quote from oktiri:
416 electoral votes ? that sounds "real". Did you have any sleep for the last 5 days ? I can picture you creating accounts non stop and "voting" for McCain. You channel Kudlow's delusional optimism With Hannity's abject moron(ism).
Quote from seneca_roman:
In the last election INTRADE picked correctly all 50 states, something no other poll did. INTRADE is not a poll, rather it is a futures market where real money is at stake.
It also picked all senate races correctly in the 2006 elections.
Seneca
Everybody gets lucky. Ritholtz on "Intrade". Not that there is anything wrong w/being a college student, though.
Prediction Markets Fail Again
Monday, October 20, 2008 | 08:53 PM
in Commodities | Markets | Trading
GO FIGURE: Prediction markets -- those thinly traded games played by college kids and other traders who lack the capital to trade in deeper broader markets (equities, fixed income, commodities, currencies) -- are for shit:
"To the amazement of economists and online bettors, the answer has varied a great deal among betting Web sites.
Markets are not supposed to work that way, even online prediction markets, where bettors trade on the chances of a candidateâs winning an election in the same way that they might bet on pork bellies to go up in value.
In the last few weeks, Intrade.com, which is based in Dublin, had consistently given John McCain as much as a 10 percentage point edge in his chances to be elected president compared with other large online overseas betting sites. These include the British-based Betfair.com, as well as the Iowa Electronic Markets, a research project at the University of Iowa that allows bets of $500 on election results."
Actually, thinly traded markets such as this are supposed to work EXACTLY this way. What prevents the "real" markets from operating this way (most of the time) is the enormous amounts of money at stake, and the huge and diversified crowds of traders watching for aberrations. Little markets, small amounts of money (millions not trillions) and thin trading are prone to this sort of nonsense. (Don't say you weren't warned)
Here's, the question of the evening: How many legitimate market strategists, economists, and traders still believe in the Efficient Market Hypothesis? Anyone?