<link>

<link>

Did you actually look at those figures? Florida is a weak dem, the state that gave Bush the Pres in 2000, or Ohio, a stong Dem, the state that gave Bush the Pres in 2004!

According to that map/graph the majority of the US is solid Rep, yeah, sure!

The only people who can lose the Pres election are the Dems themselves, they can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

facts don't matter. Besides, she's already said she doesn't care.

I'm very disappointed in some of the posters here, they're like kids who say that if their team can't win they're taking the ball and going home!

You're disappointed? Can you even imagine what they'd say if the positions were reversed and Obama supporters behaved this way?

BTW, in case you've missed it, you're on the black list, too, for being an Obamamaniac. It's truly pathetic. I'm reminded of Barbara Bush's book "My Favorite Son" in which she told the story about George W. growing up. He'd take his ball and bat and form a game of sand lot baseball. If he was losing, he'd try to change the rules. As his "friends" difted away in disgust, he'd take his ball and bat and go home.

Makes me wonder if this is what these Hillary supporters have taught their children?

The biggest question is with Hillary with a worldwide recognition, years in the center of the political stage can't put this primary away, why can't SHE close the deal? Why can't SHE win black voters?

I'm not following your argument. What is it you're trying to say?

If neither of you have the decency to address MA's top post may I suggest that you start your own top post attacking the Hillary supporters on this board..specifically MA and me? That way you will not be threadjacking a poster's thread.

And you snot that we are childish.

BTW, Shirley, don't worry about what we are teaching our children you seem to be having plenty of problems in that area yourself.

SG

shirley:

You're disappointed? Can you even imagine what they'd say if the positions were reversed and Obama supporters behaved this way?

BTW, in case you've missed it, you're on the black list, too, for being an Obamamaniac. It's truly pathetic. I'm reminded of Barbara Bush's book "My Favorite Son" in which she told the story about George W. growing up. He'd take his ball and bat and form a game of sand lot baseball. If he was losing, he'd try to change the rules. As his "friends" difted away in disgust, he'd take his ball and bat and go home.

Makes me wonder if this is what these Hillary supporters have taught their children?

The biggest question is with Hillary with a worldwide recognition, years in the center of the political stage can't put this primary away, why can't SHE close the deal? Why can't SHE win black voters?

It's called "identity voting," the white version of which is called "racism."

I think of all the years the Clintons have worked with black America...then along comes a rival candidate who happens to be black, and Wham! they are out like yesterday's trash.

Dave

If the roles were reversed, Clinton supporters, being mostly pragmatists, would be bending over backwards to try to patch up rifts with Obama supporters, at this point. We'd figure that the victory was going to be ours sooner or later, so now was the time to go very light on the rhetoric and try to bring the party back together, for the sake of Clinton's chances in November. But things look very different from an extremist's perspective, I'm sure.

I actually found myself in a somewhat similar position in both 2000 and 2004. Both times, I picked the more moderate of the two leading Democrats. When it became clear that Gore would defeat Bradley and that Kerry would defeat first Dean and then Edwards, I went quiet on anything that sounded remotely negative about the Democratic opponent, focusing instead on positive messages about my guy, and negative messages about Bush. I went from being one of Dean's firmest critics, for example, to defending him loudly and strongly against his Republican detractors, in the wake of what they were stupidly calling his scream. And with Edwards and Bradley my praise was downright glowing.

I realized that ultimately we'd need to come together, and there was no point further driving in the wedge once I felt confident about the nomination fight's outcome. In fact, if anything I went a little overboard with praise for the soon-to-be-defeated opponent and his supporters, crediting them with a hard-fought battle and with bringing important issues to the fore. Magnanimity in the face of looming victory was easy. I figured it was the likely winner's position to work hard to heal the wounds.

Sadly, judging by the behavior of Obama supporters, they're either secretly scared that their guy will implode if he has to go one more round against Clinton, or they're just really vicious and short-sighted people.

Yes, dear, we do have problems--one grandson with ADHD who refuses to take his meds; one great-granddaughter who has brittle bone disease and one grandson who has dwarfism. Do you have a problem with that?

Yesterday, many of the Obama supporters were prepared to extend the olive branch, in fact, I posted that Obama supporters have been on the losing end know what that feels like--the disappointment, sadnessetc. We were met with the same vitriolic posts the Hillary supporters have posted for a long time. We've been consistently accused of using Roves playbook (Wolfson's term) and yet Factcheck pointed out that Hillary launched the first attack ad. You still haven't answered why so many of her supporters and officials have left her campaign citing it was because of the her negative campaign.

Hillary supporters have been ver quick to point the finger at Obama supporters but refurse to acknowledge their actions.

I'm through playing this childish game with you. Maybe it would just be better if Slate KFS into halves--one for Hillary supporters and one for Obama supporters.

They are angry that I started a post about Lake City.Shirley has been angry at me since I told her in an email what I thought about her hate Hillary posts.

I kept it private,she insists on bringing it to the board. I have had my say,will now leave it alone.

MaryAnne:

<link>

As we know from GWB, all one need do is gain the majority,

Take this as coming from an Obama leaner or take it as something coming from a neutral observer.

How does one do such a survey by picking and choosing various polls?

Various polls phrase their questions in different ways, thus the question if one took a Zogby poll asked of New Yorkers and a Harris poll asked of New Yorkers would the results automatically line up?

"Would you vote for John McCain is a different question than would you consider voting for John McCain, thus to suggest that one question used in Texas is comparable to the other question used in Maryland, offers some real concerns about how they measure anything accurately

Example:

What are methodological errors?

First, there are many ways a polling can give misleading results due to poor methodology. For example, the phrasing of the questions is known to influence the results. Consider the following options:

• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for the Democrat or the Republican?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for Mark Warner or Jim Gilmore?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for Jim Gilmore or Mark Warner?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for Democrat Mark Warner or Republican Jim Gilmore?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, would you vote for Republican Jim Gilmore or Democrat Mark Warner?
• If the Virginia Senate election were held today, for whom would you vote?

These questions will all get different responses.

Second, the sample may not be random. The most famous blunder in polling history occurred during the 1936 presidential election, in which Literary Digest magazine took a telephone poll and concluded that Alf Landon was going to beat Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide. Didn't happen. What went wrong? At the height of the Depression, only rich people had telephones, and they were overwhelmingly Republican. But there weren't very many of them. Even now, telephone polls miss people too poor to have telephones, people who don't speak English (well), and people scared of strangers or too busy to deal with pollsters. These effects could systematically bias the results if not corrected for.

------------------------------­------------------------------­----

When you use a mix of polls to present a conclusion how are you assuming the difference in the way the different pollsters (neutral or not) phrase their questions does not throw off the consistency of the results?

I understand if you want to shoot me because I lean toward Obama at this point and because of that any of my responses are simply knee jerk reactions, I would also understand if you had the same questions I have about how this offers an accurate comparison.

Suppose I wanted to illustrate something. I could look to a plethora of polling information and pick and chose the poll whose results helped me illustrate what I wanted to illustrate.

If Zogby and Harris both did polls in all states, but because the questions on the same subject they posed offered the potential for a different result as offered in the methodological errors discussion above, why wouldn't I pick the poll results that suited my illustration.

Say the "same" question was asked in Texas by Zogby and Harris, but because of the way it was posed or phrased, candidate Cat in the Hat came out "positive" in Texas in the Zogby poll, but came out "negatively" in the Harris Poll.

All I need do then is select the poll that showed the candidate I supported or did not support gaining either positive or negative results from state to state. If I wanted a desired result.

If I wanted the Cat in the Hat to look positive, I would choose that poll (of the number of polls done in each state) that showed a positive result and discard the polls which offered a negative result. Looking to make the Cat in the Hat out to not be so positive or find negative results, I could simply select the poll that offered that result.

This may or may not be the case in this polling. I cannot find any reference to who put it together, not that who put it together would necessarily legitimize or present an intentional bias, but as with any investigation, the more one knows the more one can consider.

I would add that ALL polls today are nearly useless since they all use telephone polling. Everyone I know either has ONLY a cell phone or they have internet based phones like Vonage or Skype. These people aren't in the book, and the prefixes are often not indicative of where they live.