• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Polls... When is the last time...

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
When is the last time (except Reagan 84... Winner of 49-states), when a Republican has lead in the polls?
 
Was this a serious question or were you trying to make point? I mean, you can google something if you are unsure, you don't have to create a thread. Were you trying to suggest that you can't trust the current polling because republicans never lead in presidential polls or something?
 
Well that was fun.
 
roughdraft274 said:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2004 - General Election: Bush vs. Kerry
Click to expand...

Usually closer to the election the polls get more accurate as to not get egg on their faces. Even with that notice the RCP average had Bush winning at a lower % than the actual results.

Right now main stream media polls are just trying to set the narrative that Trump cant win. It's hard to do when Trump rallies full sports arenas and Hillary's leave high schools gyms half empty.

That enthusiasm is purposely being left out by most of the media. Enthusiasm was the biggest reasons for Obama wins over McCain and Romney. The enthusiasm for Trump a lot higher than anything Obama had and the enthusiasm for Hillary is lower than it ever was for McCain or Romney.
 
Casca XV said:
Usually closer to the election the polls get more accurate as to not get egg on their faces. Even with that notice the RCP average had Bush winning at a lower % than the actual results.

Right now main stream media polls are just trying to set the narrative that Trump cant win. It's hard to do when Trump rallies full sports arenas and Hillary's leave high schools gyms half empty.

That enthusiasm is purposely being left out by most of the media. Enthusiasm was the biggest reasons for Obama wins over McCain and Romney. The enthusiasm for Trump a lot higher than anything Obama had and the enthusiasm for Hillary is lower than it ever was for McCain or Romney.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with most of it, though Obama had a cult like following, fomented by a press corpse that had their Pom-pops out.

Obama offered empty vessels that allowed people to put their dreams in.

We learned... At least some have... That reading a Teleprompteur well is not qualification enough to be president.

Polls are used as a tool in an attempt to suppress and detect voters on the right.
 
Casca XV said:
Usually closer to the election the polls get more accurate as to not get egg on their faces. Even with that notice the RCP average had Bush winning at a lower % than the actual results.
Click to expand...

You'll notice that Bush was actually leading by more than he won by for the three months prior to the election. By your logic were they trying to drum up enthusiasm for Bush?

Right now main stream media polls are just trying to set the narrative that Trump cant win. It's hard to do when Trump rallies full sports arenas and Hillary's leave high schools gyms half empty.
Click to expand...

Rally size doesn't mean that much. Romney had much bigger crowds than Obama throughout 2012.

That enthusiasm is purposely being left out by most of the media. Enthusiasm was the biggest reasons for Obama wins over McCain and Romney. The enthusiasm for Trump a lot higher than anything Obama had and the enthusiasm for Hillary is lower than it ever was for McCain or Romney.
Click to expand...

First off, that's not true by any measure. Trump has his enthusiastic fans to be sure, but his favorability ratings are atrocious. He's constantly around -30% while Obama was +30-50% in 2008. Not that it particularly matters, but Obama had larger crowd sizes too in 08. I don't see any justification for Trump having much higher enthusiasm than anything Obama had.

Every year the party behind in the polls makes all sorts of excuses about why they're wrong this time, be it crowd sizes, Party ID numbers in the polls, and any number of other reasons. Republicans did it in 2008 and 2012. Democrats did it in 2010 and 2014. Each and every time they were wrong and the polls were right.
 
zimmer said:
I'll agree with most of it, though Obama had a cult like following, fomented by a press corpse that had their Pom-pops out.

Obama offered empty vessels that allowed people to put their dreams in.

We learned... At least some have... That reading a Teleprompteur well is not qualification enough to be president.

Polls are used as a tool in an attempt to suppress and detect voters on the right.
Click to expand...


Thats funny...because every time Trump goes off from reading the teleprompter into one his rants..he proves he's not qualified to be president.
 
zimmer said:
Polls are used as a tool in an attempt to suppress and detect voters on the right.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They showed Republicans winning in landslides in 2010 and 2014, not just at the end, but for the entire year. And although they were close to accurate, they actually underestimated Obama's wins in 2014 and 2012. In 2004 for the last 3 months they had Bush up by around 6% before settling down the last week at the 2% he actually won by. People on both sides go after the polls whenever they are losing. And so far, they have always been wrong when they do so.
 
zimmer said:
Polls are used as a tool in an attempt to suppress and detect voters on the right.
Click to expand...

That seems to be some victim card nonsense right there. Polls are now anti-rightwing?
 
Casca XV said:
Usually closer to the election the polls get more accurate as to not get egg on their faces. Even with that notice the RCP average had Bush winning at a lower % than the actual results.
Click to expand...

Can you please show a source that shows that polling companies are messing with the polls prior to the election and then make them more accurate closer to the election? That's quite a claim considering that there are dozens if not hundreds of polling firms around the country, numerous of which do work for media that is widely considered conservative and not liberal.

Also, yes the RP average was off. By 1%, in favor of Kerry. But it still got it right. I can't see any reasonable person considering that a failure. And also, if you look up the RCP average in 2008 and 2012, you'll find that they were only off by .3% in 2008 in favor of Obama (Obama won by 7.3% and they had 7.7%) and in 2012 they were off by 3.2% in favor of Romney (Obama won by 3.9% and they had .7%). So if it's the goal of pollsters to make it seem as though the republicans don't stand a chance then why on earth did they lean towards Romney? The real answer, the one that doesn't belong in the conspiracy theory forum) is that we can track pollsters, see how accurate they've been in the past, we can look at any assumptions they make etc. and assume that based on past performance they are going to generally reliable when used and read intelligently.

Casca XV said:
Right now main stream media polls are just trying to set the narrative that Trump cant win. It's hard to do when Trump rallies full sports arenas and Hillary's leave high schools gyms half empty.
Click to expand...
The polls don't have Hillary up by a ton. They are still for the most part showing a competitive race. I'm seeing anywhere from 4-6 points. Obama won by 7.3% and 3.9% in his elections, so it's not unrealistic, but 4% points is very far away from a runaway. A major gaffe or two is all it takes. And in the end you need to show evidence for such a claim. Show proof that they are tweeking the polls to change the narrative. The polls currently make perfect sense. Hillary was up by 1-3% prior to the debate, after the debate and the Trump twitter breakdown she is up by 4-6%. A good debate performance and a meltdown by your opponent could easily shift the polls by 3%. That's not very much.

Also, Bernie had much more and larger rallies than Hillary. He also got much fewer votes. Rally attendance doesn't mean anything.

Casca XV said:
That enthusiasm is purposely being left out by most of the media. Enthusiasm was the biggest reasons for Obama wins over McCain and Romney. The enthusiasm for Trump a lot higher than anything Obama had and the enthusiasm for Hillary is lower than it ever was for McCain or Romney.
Click to expand...

The enthusiasm is being reported on everywhere. Polls don't poll enthusiasm, they poll votes. 1 vote from a guy that loves trump to death is the equivalent to 1 vote from a person that doesn't like Hillary but hates trump more. And like I said, Bernie had a hundred times the enthusiasm that Hillary did, but Hillary got literally millions of more votes than Bernie did. You aren't making logical coherent arguments. You are just wishing something to be true.
 
Anagram said:
No they aren't. They showed Republicans winning in landslides in 2010 and 2014, not just at the end, but for the entire year. And although they were close to accurate, they actually underestimated Obama's wins in 2014 and 2012. In 2004 for the last 3 months they had Bush up by around 6% before settling down the last week at the 2% he actually won by. People on both sides go after the polls whenever they are losing. And so far, they have always been wrong when they do so.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it sure seems to be done much more often on one side, but ok ;)
 
roughdraft274 said:
Hmm, it sure seems to be done much more often on one side, but ok ;)
Click to expand...

Well it's been done more on the Republican side lately because they've lost the last two presidential elections and are losing this one. It's been more muted during the midterms because people are paying less attention in general, but it was in full force on sites like Daily Kos. 2004 was before my time but I've been told the spiritual predecessor to Unskewed Polls got a lot of play saying Democrats were really winning.

Rest assured both sides do it, for basically the same reason that the refs are the reason that everyone's favorite team lost. It's human nature.
 
Anagram said:
Well it's been done more on the Republican side lately because they've lost the last two presidential elections and are losing this one. It's been more muted during the midterms because people are paying less attention in general, but it was in full force on sites like Daily Kos. 2004 was before my time but I've been told the spiritual predecessor to Unskewed Polls got a lot of play saying Democrats were really winning.

Rest assured both sides do it, for basically the same reason that the refs are the reason that everyone's favorite team lost. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

Well, agree to disagree. In 2010 and 2014 I distinctly remember most democrats/liberals arguing over how many seats they were going to lose, not about whether the polls were completely unfair and that really democrats were ahead. Except for the politicians of course, they aren't allowed to admit reality during a campaign.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Well, agree to disagree. In 2010 and 2014 I distinctly remember most democrats/liberals arguing over how many seats they were going to lose, not about whether the polls were completely unfair and that really democrats were ahead. Except for the politicians of course, they aren't allowed to admit reality during a campaign.
Click to expand...

They agreed they were going to lose for sure. Just not as badly. Many Democrats were convinced Udall and Braley would win for instance, despite no polls showing them ahead in the last month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom