AK: Rasmussen: Obama within 4 points of McCain

[Flying Dog]

I love how everyone in here is fantasizing about the moment when Obama is declared the winner in Alaska. "I guess I could stay up to see them call it for Obama at 3 am!!!!"

Pssh, party pooper.

[Alcon]

New Poll: Alaska President by Rasmussen on 2008-06-22

Summary: D: 41%, R: 45%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Here's the exact posting.

Now, when you check the link you find that the data is a little different.

In the posting, there is NO mention whatsoever of "Other" support (even though it exceeds the "Not sure/Unsure" level in the poll), but the "Not sure/Unsure" is shown, abeit rounded up!

That is because Dave's software does not list Other in posts when they are auto-generated.  If you object to this:

1. Click the database link provided to find out, and leave the poll enterers alone.

2. Complain to Dave, and leave the poll enterers alone.

3. Enter polls yourself, so you have the grounds to ask that people exert more effort as volunteers than they already do, when you do nothing.

The "data" (which is in the database, which you obviously were unaware of) is correct as it can be.  The only error is that "undecided" is rounded up, but that cannot be corrected by the person who entered the poll -- only Dave.

It's Dave you need to contact if you have a problem with this.

[CARLHAYDEN]

New Poll: Alaska President by Rasmussen on 2008-06-22

Summary: D: 41%, R: 45%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Here's the exact posting.

Now, when you check the link you find that the data is a little different.

In the posting, there is NO mention whatsoever of "Other" support (even though it exceeds the "Not sure/Unsure" level in the poll), but the "Not sure/Unsure" is shown, abet rounded up!

Now Wiz, to his credit, noted in his post on the Rasmussen survey for Oregon the significant support of another candidate.  So, there was no basis for criticizing his post, and I did not criticize it!

[Alcon]

Your complaint seems to be that "Other" is not listed for you in the auto-generated posts.

You can see "Other" listed if you click the link to the database.

In other terms, you want volunteers to go out of their way to add information to the auto-generated posts so you don't have to click a link.

You, in the meantime, will continue to not to contribute your poll-adding efforts, only complain that they don't go the extra mile to save you the click.

Right.  No.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Your complaint seems to be that "Other" is not listed for you in the auto-generated posts.

You can see "Other" listed if you click the link to the database.

In other terms, you want volunteers to go out of their way to add information to the auto-generated posts so you don't have to click a link.

You, in the meantime, will continue to not to contribute your poll-adding efforts, only complain that they don't go the extra mile to save you the click.

Right.  No.

Did you bother to read my post, or simply not understand it?

Where support for another ("Other") candidate exceeds the "Unsure/Not sure" category, then listing the "unsure" category (and being aware it is inflated) without mention of ther "Other" category is misleading!

It wasn't difficult for Wiz to do it in the Oregon case (or was it too difficult for you).

[Alcon]

Did you bother to read my post, or simply not understand it?

Where support for another ("Other") candidate exceeds the "Unsure/Not sure" category, then listing the "unsure" category (and being aware it is inflated) without mention of ther "Other" category is misleading!

It wasn't difficult for Wiz to do it in the Oregon case (or was it too difficult for you).

"Other" support is listed in the poll database.  If you want "Other" to be listed in the poll posts, ask Dave to add that function or enter other polls yourself.  It's extra effort, especially when entering polls in bulk.  I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your request if the number of polls you entered exceeded n=0.  Otherwise it's just, "do more effort to satisfy a trivial quirk while I continue to do nothing!"

(Get it?  n=0.  Statistics joke.  Har.)

[Wiz in Wis]

Did you bother to read my post, or simply not understand it?

Where support for another ("Other") candidate exceeds the "Unsure/Not sure" category, then listing the "unsure" category (and being aware it is inflated) without mention of ther "Other" category is misleading!

It wasn't difficult for Wiz to do it in the Oregon case (or was it too difficult for you).

"Other" support is listed in the poll database.  If you want "Other" to be listed in the poll posts, ask Dave to add that function or enter other polls yourself.  It's extra effort, especially when entering polls in bulk.  I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your request if the number of polls you entered exceeded n=0.  Otherwise it's just, "do more effort to satisfy a trivial quirk while I continue to do nothing!"

(Get it?  n=0.  Statistics joke.  Har.)

To be fair, the only reason I mentioned the 9 percent in OR is because 9% is a ridiculously high percentage for an independent candidate(s). It had nothing to do with how the poll is autoreported. I actually never noticed that before. I am forced to agree with Carl, the others should be reported. But as Alcon has noted several times.. thats for Dave to decide.

[Alcon]

I agree too (and the rounding thing should be fixed too - 99% or 101% is fine).  I just don't think it's reasonable to demand we edit every poll entry to list the "Other" percentage when it's not especially meaningful right now.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wiz.

First, the nine per cent is not for "a" candidate but rather for "another candidate."  It would be interesting to know how its broken out, but its not just one candidate, much less an "independent" candidate.

Second, it will be interesting to see if there is a regional nature to support for "another candidate."

[Hash]

Carl hasn't understood much of what Alcon said in this thread.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Wow, I really hope Democrats are stupid enough to waste time here.  All the time and energy it takes to get to Alaska only to have happen what happened to Bush in Hawaii in 2004.  Maybe states that are not contigous have terrible polling.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Wow, I really hope Democrats are stupid enough to waste time here.  All the time and energy it takes to get to Alaska only to have happen what happened to Bush in Hawaii in 2004.  Maybe states that are not contigous have terrible polling.

Or maybe AK is really this close and believe Obama will have alot of money to run ads in many states, I AK will be one that he runs ads in. This is a sign of a hard road ahead for McCain. McCain can't waste money running ads in places like AK, NC, SC, MT, ND ect places that when for Bush by over 10% but are close this year. I wouldn't be to shock to see McCain win OH, NV and NH but lose 2 of the states I listed.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Democrats should watch how they handle this new drilling issue that Bush injected into the campaign.  Every moment Democrats spend arguing that the environment trumps oil regardless of circumstance hurts them in places with oil.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow, I really hope Democrats are stupid enough to waste time here.  All the time and energy it takes to get to Alaska only to have happen what happened to Bush in Hawaii in 2004.  Maybe states that are not contigous have terrible polling.

Because Alaska is sooooo expensive to campaign in. It's going to be such a money drain on Obama.

[agcatter]

The drilling thing will be a dagger in the heart to Obama in Alaska.  i could care less what Obama spends in this state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wow, I really hope Democrats are stupid enough to waste time here.  All the time and energy it takes to get to Alaska only to have happen what happened to Bush in Hawaii in 2004.  Maybe states that are not contiguous have terrible polling.

I don't think Obama can win Alaska, but he'll have enough money and probably enough of a lead to make seeing whether his coattails will be long enough to help topple Stevens and Young worthwhile.

The drilling thing will be a dagger in the heart to Obama in Alaska.  i could care less what Obama spends in this state.

Except that IIRC, McCain is still anti-ANWR drilling.  His pro-drilling flip is only to now be in favor of letting the States decide whether they want to allow drilling in the Federal waters off their shores.