I'll believe it when I see poll numbers from a legitimate polling organization.

It's going to take more than a black man in the White Hizzouse to bridge the racial divide in the country. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it had the opposite effect.

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

There are an awful lot of people who are simply unwilling to take any portion of responsibility or blame on themselves, or to see their supposed enemies' concerns as valid.

The moral: never try to speak to Americans like adults.

First our women, then our houses... Where will they stop? Our video games could be next!

Wasn't Bush's "spiritual adviser" convicted of some sort of lewd felony?

Skepticfool: Wasn't Bush's "spiritual adviser" convicted of some sort of lewd felony?

Yeah but he didn't have BLACK RAGE so who cares?

/what's a nubian?

hillbillypharmacist: There are an awful lot of people who are simply unwilling to take any portion of responsibility or blame on themselves, or to see their supposed enemies' concerns as valid.

Oddly enough, that was my impression of Obama's speech.

For my part, I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see.

heywoodmoutaw: For my part, I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see.

You're gonna need honkey shot then. Come round back and I'll get you set up.

Boobies: The moral: never try to speak to Americans like adults.

this.

Katie98_KT: I'll believe it when I see poll numbers from a legitimate polling organization.

Actual link to survey results here. (new window)

"The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama's speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation."

807 people?

This is not the sort of thing you can poll like this. When there's an upsetting subject, it causes turmoil. It gets a negative reaction immediately, even if eventually it will sort itself out into a positive response.

We've gotta stop polling every 5 minutes and just decide what the fark we think on our own.

So, 807 people now determine the fate of the presidential election?

The internet sure does give people who we would normally ignore a voice. Unfortunately it seems all of the whack jobs out there are making the most noise.

Huh...I wonder if I should feel like an odd man out, then.

The way Obama handled the Wright flak and his speech just convinced me further that my vote for him in the Primaries was the correct one... and I'll still vote for him in the general election should he be the nominee.

Give me a break. (new window)

Obdicut: This is not the sort of thing you can poll like this. When there's an upsetting subject, it causes turmoil. It gets a negative reaction immediately, even if eventually it will sort itself out into a positive response.

We've gotta stop polling every 5 minutes and just decide what the fark we think on our own.

I may or may not agree with you, I am waiting for the polling numbers to come in.

LaRouche is ahead in all the polls taken by people that understand the importance of rail.

What's the margin of error on this study? Because i'm seeing a 4% change, and i'll betcha the margin is wider than 4%.

HeadbangerSmurf: So, 807 people now determine the fate of the presidential election?

The internet sure does give people who we would normally ignore a voice. Unfortunately it seems all of the whack jobs out there are making the most noise.

807 truly random people is a little low, but not outrageously so.

Boobies
The moral: never try to speak to Americans like adults.

I am not an Obama fan, but I thought he was smarter than this. There are some things you just can not talk about in front of Americans...we just can't handle it. It is sort of like the nonsense we go through every time there is a Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing... we actually want to believe that a learned juror hasn't ever thought about abortion.

You have to give people a little time to start thinking rationally. Remember, two buildings fell down and all of a sudden the president had an astronomical approval rating. Yeah, that makes sense.

Tell Americans that they didn't like the speech enough times, and they'll start to 'remember' that they didn't like the speech.

dgc360: Katie98_KT: I'll believe it when I see poll numbers from a legitimate polling organization.

Actual link to survey results here. (new window)

"The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama's speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation."

807 people?

actually, that's a fairly legitimate study sample size, though I think they underestimated the margin of error. I'd have to go back through my notes. I meant I'm waiting for a major polling agency to come out with numbers that specifically address this issue. I've never heard of this agency, and it certainly hasn't been picked up by the mainstream press.

The endless Right-Wing spinning, distorting, and misleading summaries of Obama's speech on race has made both whites and blacks less likely to vote for him. He really is bringing America together

FTFY, Submitter.

Katie98_KT: actually, that's a fairly legitimate study sample size, though I think they underestimated the margin of error. I'd have to go back through my notes. I meant I'm waiting for a major polling agency to come out with numbers that specifically address this issue. I've never heard of this agency, and it certainly hasn't been picked up by the mainstream press.

I also would like to see a breakdown of people who have heard about the speech or seen clips on the news, and people who have actually seen the speech in its entirety.

Might be tough to get a big enough sample, though.

Obama fans: fear not...polls differ and fluctuate
Obama foes: rejoice not...see above

Heard a poll on Olbermann (I think) last night that 70% said Obama's affiliation with Wright/the speech made no difference in their opinion of Obama, and the other 30% were evenly split between being more likely to vote for Obama and being less likely.

If polls in October are consistent one way or the other, then I will rejoice or be genuinely concerned.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people

i watched the entire speech and obama could be the greatest president to ever hold office.

i wonder if "america" deserves it.

if history has taught me anything...it is that most americans are retarded and shallow.

if diebold wants mccain...that's what we'll get.

the other thing that strikes me as bad about this poll is that they didn't separate the issues of Wright's speech and Obama's speech.
People are EVER so likely to claim knowledge about something they've never heard of, or only ever heard of in passing.

Here are the questions they asked:

"Are you aware of the situation regarding Sen. Barack Obama's church pastor and the past public remarks he has made?"
"Are you aware of Obama's speech on Tuesday, in which he addresses the issue of his pastor?"
then, finally,:
"Taking all this into account are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?"


So, first you asked about a news story that's been around for weeks. Of course people are "aware" of it. you'd have to be locked in a cave not to have heard something in passing So they answer yes. Then, they get asked about Obama's speech. EVEN IF THEY'VE never heard that Obama gave a speech, they're MUCH more likely to answer yes. People LIKE to answer yes. They LIKE to appear informed. Especially after answering yes to the last one, they can't say no now. Also note the question doesn't ask did you listen to the speech, do you know what he said, etc etc- only if they're AWARE of the speech. That's a pretty crappy way of sorting out people.

So, you've got huge problems here:
1. People have heard about Wright, and therefore are more likely to just continue answering yes
2. People want to appear informed, so they're more likely to answer yes
3. The question fails to ask anything more than are they aware of the speech, nothing about how much they know about it, etc etc. A GOOD question would be something like "HOW aware are you of the contents of the speech?" (or similar), then divided the voters based on this. People are much more likely to admit they know very little about the speech.
4. They didn't ask about the speech and Wright's comments separately. They combined them together. So, people who have only heard Wright's comments, which were on the news for weeks, are going to be counted, even if in reality they haven't heard Obama's speech, and therefore their opinion is based ONLY or almost exclusively on Wright's comments- yet the pollsters claim that they're giving numbers based on Obama's speech.

hillbillypharmacist: Katie98_KT: actually, that's a fairly legitimate study sample size, though I think they underestimated the margin of error. I'd have to go back through my notes. I meant I'm waiting for a major polling agency to come out with numbers that specifically address this issue. I've never heard of this agency, and it certainly hasn't been picked up by the mainstream press.

I also would like to see a breakdown of people who have heard about the speech or seen clips on the news, and people who have actually seen the speech in its entirety.

Might be tough to get a big enough sample, though.

what you want to know is How much of the speech people watched. I'm not interested in seeing polls only of people who watched the whole speech, that's riddiculous. What you want to see is a study finding out HOW MANY people sought out more info about the speech, how many then went and watched the whole speech.

THEN, you find out, based on how much they know about the speech/how much they watched, what their opinion is. And whether it CHANGED. The change measure is usually just speculative, since people back project, but its still an interesting statistic.
And trust me, someone out there is doing this. I expect to see a gallup poll next week on this. Done properly.

AcheronX: Tell Americans that they didn't like the speech enough times, and they'll start to 'remember' that they didn't like the speech.

actually, their questions aren't push polling. If that's what you're referring to. I addressed in my earlier post what's wrong with them, but push polling isn't one of the problems.

If you're talking about news media/fox saying that, then yea, that can be a problem.

Less likely doesn't mean won't. I can't imagine that many people changing their choice at the poll over this.

Oh, one more problem with their question. Since their notes are unclear:

the last question asks: Are you more or less likely.
Given ONLY these options, people feel the need to chose one. The question should be phrased differently, giving responds a clear option to respond I don't know, or no opinion. By pushing people into giving an opinion, you skew the results. People like to answer questions how they're instructed to.

Now, its possible that the actual polling question was different- we aren't given that information, and there are people who answered about the same or no opinion based on their numbers. But, if the question reads "Are you more or less likely" then voters are given the options: 1. more likely, 2. less likely, 3. about the same, 4. No opinion", again, people like to follow the question. Even though other options were given.

Here's (new window) a different poll from a source I've actually heard of. Seems to be some difference in conclusions...

Here we go, excellent example of how you handle controversial questions. They break down the issues into separate questions, they ask how closely someone has follow the news, and they provide the options that indicate a respondent is UNSURE. These are the actual questions from a Gallup Poll taken 01/28/1998-01/28/1998.

Poll info:
Date: 01/28/1998-01/28/1998
Sponsor: CNN/USA Today
Population: National Adult
Methodology: Outbound Telephone
Number of Questions: 32

"Question qn6
As you may know, there are allegations being reported in the news that President Clinton had an extramarital affair with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has denied these allegations. How closely have you followed the news about these allegations -- Very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"
"Question qn7a
(As you may know, there are allegations being reported in the news that President Clinton had an extramarital affair with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton has denied these allegations.) Now I'm going to describe some of the allegations being made in this matter. As I read each one, please say whether you think it is definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true...The allegation that Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky?"
"Question qn7b
...The allegation that Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky?) [IF PROBABLY TRUE, PROBABLY NOT TRUE, DEFINITELY NOT TRUE, OR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED, ASK:] The allegation that Bill Clinton had sexual relations of any kind with Monica Lewinsky?"
"Question qn7c
...The allegation that Bill Clinton lied under oath about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky?"
"Question qn7d
...The allegation that Bill Clinton participated in an effort to obstruct justice by getting Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about the affair?"
"Question qn7e
...The allegation that Bill Clinton had sexual relations of any kind with any other woman besides his wife or Monica Lewinsky since he became President?"

Lionel Mandrake: Here's (new window) a different poll from a source I've actually heard of. Seems to be some difference in conclusions...

much better poll- their first two questions (more) accurately assess how much voters know about the speech.

Q1: "1* We're just about finished... how closely have you followed news stories about Barack Obama's speech on race and national unity?"50% Very closely
32% Somewhat closely

13% Not very closely

3% Not at all

2% Not sure
Q2: "2* Have you seen or heard at least part of Obama's speech?

84% Yes

10% No

5% Not sure"

Wrong (new window)

But, thanks, Right Wing Noise Machine for playing today, we have some parting gifts for you.

bulldg4life: Never underestimate the power of stupid people

like the american voting public.

Katie98_KT: Also note the question doesn't ask did you listen to the speech, do you know what he said, etc etc- only if they're AWARE of the speech. That's a pretty crappy way of sorting out people.

I came here to say this. Plus, you cannot spot-poll on one day. How brain-dead or desperate are pollsters that they forget this simple rule? Had this been carried out on March 20 instead of the 19, for example, they would have excluded anyone too busy watching basketball to answer the phone.

Not to mention that many of us don't have land-line phones any longer, or screen calls.

Racism is dead.

Speaking of race, you all e'er notice how white folks always be watching them reality shows?

Boobies: The moral: never try to speak to Americans like adults.

This. We can only handle 15 second sound bites.

/off to go watch 'ow my balls'

Typical white people.

Protein Wisdom = meat for brains

72% of all statistics are either made up or wrong due to poor sampling, phrasing of question or inaccuracy of results.

The other 31% of all statistics are wrong for other reasons not listed.

T-Servo: Not to mention that many of us don't have land-line phones any longer, or screen calls.

This doesn't really affect the poll results that much. The last study on it had been done between '06 and '07 and the difference was about 2-3%.

Obama gave one of the best speeches I have heard from a candidate in a long time. But than he follows it up with calling his grandmother a "typical white person". He has to get away from comments like that. He has another speech to clarify today.

Teach the controversy.

hillbillypharmacist: There are an awful lot of people who are simply unwilling to take any portion of responsibility or blame on themselves, or to see their supposed enemies' concerns as valid.

Yep.

America gets maybe one chance in a generation or 2 to elect someone non-standard and we fall back on our ignorance, fear and stupidity.

might as well end this country:

George W. Bush '08: How Much Worse Can He Make It?