Zogby International was the most accurate pollster in every one of the last three presidential election cycles, and continues to perfect its telephone and interactive methodologies using its own live operator, in-house call center in Upstate New York, and its own secure servers for its online polling projects. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...855357-D564-4E9F-B1F1-AD053C45589F}&dist=hppr Edit: James, what good is poll on the afternoon of the election?
This was 5 pts vs Hillary in almost every state, so I think its safe to assume its 5 pts vs Mac, and not 8-10. I would imagine with each passing election cycle this number gets smaller and smaller. On election day, if the lead for BO is about 4% it will be interesting, but it needs to tighten up quite a bit in some key states. As it is right now, BO is pulling away in VA. If he takes Virginia, its probably all over as Mac won't flip anything if he can't even win there. Colorado is looking Obama as well, although Mac can lose that one. Although I hate the electoral system (who ever gets the most votes should be the damn President period. Who gives a fuck where you live), it does make for interesting strategies. Sorta like the National League vs American League in baseball. AL has no strategy when it comes to pulling pitchers vs hitting. NL has loads of strategy there. Makes it a bit of an intellectual challenge.
LMAO. They can't even get it right on the freaking afternoon of the election and they have the ball calling themselves the "most accurate." And what's the point of your linking their press release?
While not a poll, INTRADE was the only predictive tool that picked all 50 states in the 2004 election!!! In 2006 it picked correctly all senate races. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7060/is_/ai_n28529266 currently Obama is leading with about 85% in the latest INTRADE bid. Seneca
You better rethink your criticism of the electoral college. What if in a future, four candidate election the "Mexican-Black-Steal From Whitey Party" received EVERY black/brown vote and wound up with a "majority" of popular votes (example 30-25-25-20) without winning but a couple of states. Or if a secessionist candidate from California got all the votes from Cali but 6 other parties split the vote in the other 49 states? The Founding Fathers were well aware of the possibilities....
The Nation of Pabst provides 72 talented hookers to anyone who bombs and kills everyone working for CBS and the NYT......
Even though it seems cruel to take away the last straw you're clinging onto, here are some actual numbers: Virginia: Poll (Insider Advantage 2/8): Obama 52% Clinton 37% Actual vote: Obama 64% Clinton 36% Poll error: Clinton +13 West Virginia: Poll (Suffolk University 5/11): Clinton 60% Obama 24% Actual vote: Clinton 67% Obama 26% Poll error: Obama +5 North Carolina: Poll (Rasmussen 5/2): Obama 49% Clinton 40% Actual vote: Obama 56% Clinton 42% Poll error: Clinton +5 Indiana: Poll (SUSA 4/28): Clinton 52% Obama 43% Actual vote: Clinton 51% Obama 49% Poll error: Clinton +7 It seems that there were large errors in the polls in favor of Clinton in many states. There is no obvious Bradley effect. I don't have the time to pull the numbers for all the primary states or average over all the polls. The polls I used above are all reputable ones. Republicans can continue to believe Ann Coulter but other than spewing hatred, she never understands anything.
C'mon man. You're an "educator". Act like one. No need for a fallacious pick and choose sample. Show us every poll in every primary state and THEN compute if there was indeed a "Bradley effect." I could just as easily find a handful of polls with Obama under performing but my sample would be as ridiculously biased as yours.....