Calls to seat Mich. delegates to grow

[HAL 9000 96]

Polls, sister Dev...

Same polls that said Hillary was up +20 and you had to take away quite a lot just to reflect actual results in PA. For primaries.

and recently, what did they say? Not 20. Have a read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-240.html

Final: Clinton +9.4

RCP Average 04/18 - 04/21 Clinton +6.1

Therefore, I also doubt that Hillary supporters will be as bratty as some have suggested in going over to McCain in November if it were him vs. Obama. Plus Republicans that will not want to continue Bush's Legacy have found it easier to support a Democrat now, so imagine November.

You can speculate all you want, doesn't make it true though.

Truth doesn't come from sampling or average of sampling polls.

well, it was within 4 points of (actual) reality. Certainly not 20 points like you said.

If you think polls are a waste of time, got a better way to gauge the process? I'm sure you'll make millions with your idea.

Let me work on it. Want IP royalties if I come up with something for being my muse in that project?

I didn't say they were a waste of time, now did I?

Just try to dissociate sampling (with its bias by poll and sampling method) from the whole result.

And, mathematics dictates that 20% (polled) - 9.4% (real) = 10.6% (>4% somehow, error bars do not fit after real results are obtained)

[no name 1]

Polls, sister Dev...

Same polls that said Hillary was up +20 and you had to take away quite a lot just to reflect actual results in PA. For primaries.

and recently, what did they say? Not 20. Have a read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-240.html

Final: Clinton +9.4

RCP Average 04/18 - 04/21 Clinton +6.1

Therefore, I also doubt that Hillary supporters will be as bratty as some have suggested in going over to McCain in November if it were him vs. Obama. Plus Republicans that will not want to continue Bush's Legacy have found it easier to support a Democrat now, so imagine November.

You can speculate all you want, doesn't make it true though.

Truth doesn't come from sampling or average of sampling polls.

well, it was within 4 points of (actual) reality. Certainly not 20 points like you said.

If you think polls are a waste of time, got a better way to gauge the process? I'm sure you'll make millions with your idea.

Let me work on it. Want IP royalties if I come up with something for being my muse in that project?

I didn't say they were a waste of time, now did I?

Just try to dissociate sampling (with its bias by poll and sampling method) from the whole result.

And, mathematics dictates that 20% (polled) - 9.4% (real) = 10.6% (>4% somehow, error bars do not fit after real results are obtained)

See above. I made it real big for you so you don't miss it this time.

RCP average = AVERAGE of these 8 polls:

InsiderAdvantage 04/21 - 04/21 712 LV 49 42 Clinton +7.0

Zogby 04/20 - 04/21 675 LV 51 41 Clinton +10.0

Rasmussen 04/20 - 04/20 722 LV 49 44 Clinton +5.0

Suffolk 04/19 - 04/20 600 LV 52 42 Clinton +10.0

PPP (D) 04/19 - 04/20 2338 LV 46 49 Obama +3.0

Strategic Vision ® 04/18 - 04/20 1200 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0

Quinnipiac 04/18 - 04/20 1027 LV 51 44 Clinton +7.0

SurveyUSA 04/18 - 04/20 710 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0

Edited April 23, 2008 by illumine

[HAL 9000 96]

Polls, sister Dev...

Same polls that said Hillary was up +20 and you had to take away quite a lot just to reflect actual results in PA. For primaries.

and recently, what did they say? Not 20. Have a read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...rimary-240.html

Final: Clinton +9.4

RCP Average 04/18 - 04/21 Clinton +6.1

Therefore, I also doubt that Hillary supporters will be as bratty as some have suggested in going over to McCain in November if it were him vs. Obama. Plus Republicans that will not want to continue Bush's Legacy have found it easier to support a Democrat now, so imagine November.

You can speculate all you want, doesn't make it true though.

Truth doesn't come from sampling or average of sampling polls.

well, it was within 4 points of (actual) reality. Certainly not 20 points like you said.

If you think polls are a waste of time, got a better way to gauge the process? I'm sure you'll make millions with your idea.

Let me work on it. Want IP royalties if I come up with something for being my muse in that project?

I didn't say they were a waste of time, now did I?

Just try to dissociate sampling (with its bias by poll and sampling method) from the whole result.

And, mathematics dictates that 20% (polled) - 9.4% (real) = 10.6% (>4% somehow, error bars do not fit after real results are obtained)

See above. I made it real big for you so you don't miss it this time.

And bolded for yours, from your own writing.

Like I stated elsewhere-

what is believable- truthful, real results, or averages of sampling pools?

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

Edited April 23, 2008 by maviwaro

[no name 1]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

Reality was what? 9.2% 9.4%

+/- 4% and you have 5.2% and 5.4% OR 13.2% and 13.4%

If you want to argue semantics...

[SqdnGuns 21]

Dems really know how to ** up elections...........

[no name 1]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

Reality was what? 9.2% 9.4%

+/- 4% and you have 5.2% and 5.4% OR 13.2% and 13.4%

If you want to argue semantics...

not if you look at the other polls - they ranged from Clinton +3 - Clinton +10.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

Reality was what? 9.2% 9.4%

+/- 4% and you have 5.2% and 5.4% OR 13.2% and 13.4%

If you want to argue semantics...

not if you look at the other polls - they ranged from Clinton +3 - Clinton +10.

Yes, and?

In other words... umm... ####### are we arguing over?

The semantics of polls... yes...

Nevertheless there is one thing anyone with an observant mind can agree to:

Obama closed in on Clinton quite well given the "demographics" of PA.

Given this patterned change, it will no doubt be easy to conclude that similar demographics will not have a problem voting for Obama in November.

[dalegg 143]

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama

would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

That would be the only sensible thing to do at this point.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer. Current polls put Michigan at about dead even so there wouldn't likely be many gains there, but in Florida it looks like she'd not only win, but she might even do better than she did before. It would make it close enough to get the "she's through" idea out of future voters in the remaining states- assuming they know the vote is happening or happened- which could possibly get some of her original supporters off the bandwagon and back in her camp.

At any rate is seems impossible she will catch up in delegates, but that clearly isn't her angle. She's trying to appeal to the supers. Supers of a party by the way that has said that in this day and age that the popular vote is more important than the delagate race.

[no name 1]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

Reality was what? 9.2% 9.4%

+/- 4% and you have 5.2% and 5.4% OR 13.2% and 13.4%

If you want to argue semantics...

not if you look at the other polls - they ranged from Clinton +3 - Clinton +10.

Yes, and?

In other words... umm... ####### are we arguing over?

The semantics of polls... yes...

Nevertheless there is one thing anyone with an observant mind can agree to:

Obama closed in on Clinton quite well given the "demographics" of PA.

Given this patterned change, it will no doubt be easy to conclude that similar demographics will not have a problem voting for Obama in November.

Closed in yes, but he outspent her 3-1 & STILL couldn't finish ahead. Inroads, my a$$.

You're arguing over a 20% spread that hasn't exiytsed in weeks.

[no name 1]

They should just re-run the elections in MI and FL and get it over with. If they did that, Obama

would probably still keep his popular vote lead, but Hill wouldn't be too far behind.

That would be the only sensible thing to do at this point.

The result? Same dynamic we'd have if they weren't involved at all.

How do you figure? She'd be ahead in the popular vote & have more delegates.

I don't believe she'd be ahead in the popular vote but she would sure be a lot closer. Current polls put Michigan at about dead even so there wouldn't likely be many gains there, but in Florida it looks like she'd not only win, but she might even do better than she did before. It would make it close enough to get the "she's through" idea out of future voters in the remaining states- assuming they know the vote is happening or happened- which could possibly get some of her original supporters off the bandwagon and back in her camp.

"The votes in Michigan and Florida were official," Clinton told ABC News' Diane Sawyer, "I mean, they were certified by the secretary of state. It's just that the Democratic Party can't figure out what to do with all those votes, and try to seat delegates."

link

"By one (rightly disputed) metric -- the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan -- Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 -- and if you can find another objective measurement by which she’s in the lead, let us know."

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan -- which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan -- is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

link

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Dems really know how to ** up elections...........

i'm still trying to figure out why they have superdelegates.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure the polls are valid... they show trends across sampling pools.

which were within 4 points of reality!

Reality was what? 9.2% 9.4%

+/- 4% and you have 5.2% and 5.4% OR 13.2% and 13.4%

If you want to argue semantics...

not if you look at the other polls - they ranged from Clinton +3 - Clinton +10.

Yes, and?

In other words... umm... ####### are we arguing over?

The semantics of polls... yes...

Nevertheless there is one thing anyone with an observant mind can agree to:

Obama closed in on Clinton quite well given the "demographics" of PA.

Given this patterned change, it will no doubt be easy to conclude that similar demographics will not have a problem voting for Obama in November.

Closed in yes, but he outspent her 3-1 & STILL couldn't finish ahead. Inroads, my a$$.

You're arguing over a 20% spread that hasn't exiytsed in weeks.

That would be your a$$, not the voters' a$$es that changed. Inroads occur over time, yes? Then there you have it.

Both candidates essentially lived in PA for the last month. It is no biggie to see these results as a function of campaigning, and if it means spending money, then that's what it would take. Given more time and energy, the gap could have continued to shrink. That is simple logic.

The point was that Hillary absolutely NEEDED to win BIG, not just win. And she failed to hold on. You'd think that voters that firmly believe in something as right would hold on to their beliefs. I guess Obama showed that by exposing enough people to enough of his campaign, more people went beyond their comfort zones and made inroads into the primary process. This most likely can and will continue after the Convention when he is representing the Party as the Nominee, but on a logical national level.

Not even by flip-flopping on MI and FL could she win the nomination, let alone demonstrate political honesty before an electorate that demands people stick with what they mean and what they say.

Edited April 23, 2008 by maviwaro

[SqdnGuns 21]

Dems really know how to ** up elections...........

i'm still trying to figure out why they have superdelegates.

Guess the "Super" is an ego thing..............kinda elitist I think.....LOL

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Dems really know how to ** up elections...........

i'm still trying to figure out why they have superdelegates.

Guess the "Super" is an ego thing..............kinda elitist I think.....LOL

and it don't sound very democratic when joe average's vote is overruled by some elite unknown called a superdelegate.