Am I massively misunderstanding something here? What is wrong with saying screw the polls altogether and just wait for the doggone actual results of the voting.

Right? Pollsters just...guess how people vote? It's like gambling. It's just opportunity for more spin. POLLSTERS SAY OMG WTF ABOUT _____.

Pathetic.

Am I missing something there? They should all get real jobs and post on Fark while avoiding them, like us.

We should just do consecutive 3 legged races until a winner is chosen.

It's instant gratification. People speculate like crazy about how football games will turn out, they will do the same for elections. And if you ask people how they will vote, you even have something to speculate about.

What the hell. It's better than endless stories about how much someone spent on a haircut or how much a sigh means.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.. *someone* will poll the crap out of Nevada just like any other state.

Mr. Xhin: Pollsters and the Media don't care about their accuracy. All they care about is promoting a Democratic candidate that the GOP might be able to beat. That's why all stories are about Hillary and Obama....while ignoring, and thus undermining, John Edwards.....who would landslide any repuke in November.

Sure. Whatever you say.

When polls are way off it's always voter fraud right?

MilesTeg: When polls are way off it's always voter fraud right?

That or people disregarding the "undecided" category in a poll.

The pollster's were right in counties that were not counted by Diebold.


/just saying....

I am sorry how did the polls "fail" again?

No one says that night before polls or week before polls will always predict the winner (exit polls are somewhat different).

Most people understand what polls actually are. No one says they are 100% on the outcome of the race. A lot depends on who actually goes out to vote. If you think that's true your an idiot.

Just because you don't understand what a poll actually is don't say they "failed".

I bet the polls were all an actual good representation of who people expected to vote for for that time. However that's not how they DID vote for some reason or another.

Polls: shows how many people expect to vote for someone.
Elections: how many people ACTUALLY vote for someone.

If you are too stupid to understand the difference then it's YOUR fault for not understanding the difference not the polls.

MilesTeg: When polls are way off it's always voter fraud right?


If it's in exit polling then the chances are extremely high there was fraud. Once again exit polling is very different. I haven't seen any numbers on the exit polling of primary.

Have you?

Most countries use exit polling to check for voter fraud.

Mr. Xhin Pollsters and the Media don't care about their accuracy. All they care about is promoting a Democratic candidate that the GOP might be able to beat.

I'm sick of pollsters. I don't care how many people think Obama's hot, or what candidates would voters most like to have a beer w/ and polls focusing on 2-3 candidates only when projecting "victories". I think we should do away w/ the practice and just vote and be done w/ it.

>> I am sorry how did the polls "fail" again?

They didn't.

There were large amounts of uncommitted voters.

I see that this article, once again, is perpetuating the myth that the New Hampshire results had something to do with race.

Race had nothing to do with it.

From many years of political experience, I can safely say that there was one thing, and one thing only that made the difference for the Clinton camp in New Hampshire. Turnout, revv'd by her GOTV (Get-out-the-vote) effort. If you have a massive team of boots on the ground, and they are motivated, organized, and led by an experienced e-day operations team, you could get a stuffed dog elected. Caucuses are an entirely different ball-o-wax, which is why Obama was able to take Iowa (and, I suspect, Nevada). The biggest effort in a GOTV operation is focused on identifying your voters in the week before, pulling the vote in the morning, and going back to pull all the ones in the afternoon that didn't show up yet. By the time you get to 1 hour before the polls close, you have each volunteer focused on 5 voters, and doing everything they can to get them to the polls. In a caucus, because everyone has to show up at the same time, normal GOTV strategy just doesn't work. This is how you win elections. Nothing to do with policy, crying, who you farked, what colour you are, or any other factor like that. Its all about your volunteers getting the voters to the polls. (Although if you're a crybaby purple fascist on your 8th mistress, you might have some trouble recruiting volunteers.) Thats just the way it is folks. Now would all of you please do the world a favour and go volunteer for Obama campaign in your state? Please?

Personally, I wish that media outlets were prohibited from releasing poll statistics until after the election.

First, it causes people to jump on the "who's most popular" band wagon. Yes, people voting should have more smarts than to base their choice off of popularity, but some of us never move past high school. Your 10-year high school reunion should've taught you that.

Second, it can disenfranchise people who are voting for a loosing candidate. Unless you're a zealot for your candidate, why bother voting at all if they're polling in 5th place.


Of course, I think primaries are a waste of time. Everyone should remain on the ballot until the general election, at which point we can use a preferential voting system to make our choice. It's easier, it's cheaper, and it allows for people to have a say in multiple parties, not just one. So if you like McCain just a little more than Obama, you need not be forced to give the Hillarybeast more power by voting for a Republican instead.

I guess that makes it a lot easier to steal the election without those pesky polls contradicting the final tally.

Oh, and if you don't believe me, just ask this guy (new window)

yeah, we need to stop with the polls so no one suspects anything fishy when Giuliani makes his miracle comeback.

Clinton vs. Giuliani

get used to the idea.

If you want an accurate survey of who most Nevadans are going to vote for, it helps if you are able to ask, "Por cual candidato presidencial va a votar Ud?"

/too lazy to put proper diacritical marks and upsidedown question mark in above.
//Me gustan mucho los Slashies.
///Hey, that last sentence didn't need any diacritical marks.

Mr. Xhin: Pollsters and the Media don't care about their accuracy. All they care about is promoting a Democratic candidate that the GOP might be able to beat. That's why all stories are about Hillary and Obama....while ignoring, and thus undermining, John Edwards.....who would landslide any repuke in November.

Sorry, Xhin, but I'm tired of people like Clinton and Edwards running my government. They've proven that they don't do much of anything. It's time for somebody to get in there and shake things up, and I believe Obama can do that better than the other two.

Lando Lincoln: Mr. Xhin: Pollsters and the Media don't care about their accuracy. All they care about is promoting a Democratic candidate that the GOP might be able to beat. That's why all stories are about Hillary and Obama....while ignoring, and thus undermining, John Edwards.....who would landslide any repuke in November.

Sorry, Xhin, but I'm tired of people like Clinton and Edwards running my government. They've proven that they don't do much of anything. It's time for somebody to get in there and shake things up, and I believe Obama can do that better than the other two.

Not to mention Obama's consistently beaten everyone on the GOP side when they do the hypothetical matchups.

KatjaMouse: I'm sick of pollsters. I don't care how many people think Obama's hot, or what candidates would voters most like to have a beer w/ and polls focusing on 2-3 candidates only when projecting "victories". I think we should do away w/ the practice and just vote and be done w/ it.

They serve two purposes, as far as I can tell:

1) They give the candidates an idea of where their money would be best spent. If candidate A is really solid in one state, doesn't make much sense for candidate B to spend much money there.
2) They give the pundits something to talk about.

A possible third is swaying voter opinion, but this is very unpredictable, so I wouldn't count it as a very reliable purpose.

No, I don't hold much faith in polls either, especially not after Iowa and New Hampshire.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is one of the most poorly written articles out there? I wouldn't take this reporter's opinion very seriously.