A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://gatewayredbirds.org/forum/
I'll see if I can find the exit polls.Michael wrote:Do you know what % voted for John Kerry?PujolJunkie wrote:I find it funny that McCain gets something like 84% of the white vote in Mississippi and Louisiana, but the media and others don't want to say that it could be a race thing.
hey pujoljunkie - people are always skeptical of these polls. thus, did it turn out that the polls for 2000 and 2004 accurately predicted the final election results? If I recall, Gore and Kerry were both trailing most of the way in the polls, but ended up closer in the actual election results than they were polled.PujolJunkie wrote:According to CNN Exit Polls, Obama is polling 7% less than Kerry received in Mississippi and 3% less in Louisiana among whites. That seems to be the average. About 3% less. He's polling 3% less from whites than Kerry received in Alabama. Kerry got 42% in West Virginia. I can guarantee you that's not happening for Obama in any poll.
Not at all. I'm just giving a small sample size. All of these polls are small sample sizes. Think about it. There's 300 million+ people in the US. 2004, something like 120 million of them voted. These national trackers only poll maybe 3500 at the very max. They're extremely unreliable. But they do give a small idea -- albeit extremely -- where the race stands.Freed Roger wrote:hey pujoljunkie - people are always skeptical of these polls. thus, did it turn out that the polls for 2000 and 2004 accurately predicted the final election results? If I recall, Gore and Kerry were both trailing most of the way in the polls, but ended up closer in the actual election results than they were polled.PujolJunkie wrote:According to CNN Exit Polls, Obama is polling 7% less than Kerry received in Mississippi and 3% less in Louisiana among whites. That seems to be the average. About 3% less. He's polling 3% less from whites than Kerry received in Alabama. Kerry got 42% in West Virginia. I can guarantee you that's not happening for Obama in any poll.
No I don't want to open a can of worms- discussing the 2000 election. What I'm curious about is the past history. which party polls better compared to the end results. Has anybody seen this sort of analysis (in laymans terms)?
Neither matter much at this point, but I do put stock into the state polls more. There's too much going down right and will do so at the debates to where it's anyone's game to win and lose.clevername wrote:can of worms or not, the 2000 election is a perfect example of why you can't get a whole lot out of a national poll.
National polling numbers don't matter.
I get some WI stations along the border and I'll catch a little of it, but as far as IL, it's a waste of time and money to have any involvement in this state.jim wrote:What is weird is not being in one of those 10 states. I have to look for election coverage, if you didn't know better you wouldn't know an election was coming. A few bumper stickers and yard signs, but otherwise crickets. No tv, no radio, no nothin'...
I wouldn't expect anybody to be able to figure a meaning from all these polls. Especially with it coming down to what happens in several states. I was just curious about the general nature of the polls. does one party tend to do better on election day than they poll. for example -It seems in Missouri, the democrats do better on election day than the polls indicate earlier.UK wrote:Neither matter much at this point, but I do put stock into the state polls more. There's too much going down right and will do so at the debates to where it's anyone's game to win and lose.clevername wrote:can of worms or not, the 2000 election is a perfect example of why you can't get a whole lot out of a national poll.
National polling numbers don't matter.
There's about 10 states that are worth watching at this stage and will likely dwindle.