SurveyUSA 14-State Poll Release

[ottermax]

Kansas isn't that small for a news station considering that Vermont has its own, and Washington has multiple ones, and California has too many to count (one for virtually every metro area/region).

[Alcon]

The smallest media market in the United States, Glendive, Montana's, has a news station that serves just over 9,000 people.

[Beet]

How much do these stations pay for these polls?

I can make a call a minute, or 180 calls in three hours between 5:30 pm and 8:30 pm, or 540 calls over three nights. Assuming a 20% response rate, six people can make enough calls. Assuming a payment rate of $10 an hour over 5 people over 9 hours each, that is $450. I can fit all of them into the basement of my house. So what is to stop me from picking 3,240 random names out of the White pages for a particular locality, and spend $450 to conduct my own poll?

Or rather, what is to stop the Atlas forum from collectively conducting a poll? If we had 20 volunteers, each would only need to make (600 x 5 / 20) = 150 calls, which can be made in the space of three hours. All we would need is for one person to cut the list. Then there is a simple formula to calculate margin of error. If our poll comes out as better than a reputable pollster, we have just established ourselves, gentlemen!

[Ban my account ffs!]

The smallest media market in the United States, Glendive, Montana's, has a news station that serves just over 9,000 people.

We have one that serves rural western Minnesota.. and the top news story of the day?

Arv Schlammenhuerchter, of Clarissa, Minnesota, was injured when he fell asleep at the wheel of his combine and it rolled on a steep ditch.  We have Tracy Rumpuswelter live at the scene.  (Cuts to a scene of Tracy, dressed like a professional field reporter, in a pig sty full of various fecal matter with Arv's wife, Bertrum, offering bars and coffee to onlookers in the background)...

Oh, how I love the "local" news.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

In New Mexico, Hispanics include Spanish whose descendants have lived in the region for centuries. So, basically many can be counted as Whites. Also, I'm surprised Clinton is doing better because many of the swing voters in New Mexico are in the fast growing Albuquerque region, who are suburban moderates. If Hispanics really hated Obama so much, then California would be horrible for him.

He's only leading California by 7% in the most recent two polls. I would expect he'd be up by double digits.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

they poll 14 states. 14 chosen states. And one of them is Kansas. Not Florida. Not Pennsylvania. Not Nevada. Not Colorado. Not even New Jersey or Montana, Rhode Island or North Dakota. But KANSAS!

They poll on commission.  They dropped a few states this time around for some reason.

I understand that, but who in their right mind commissions a poll on Kansas? I know you like to slap senate races in my face when I make these glaring accusations against pollsters, but I don't believe there is any competitive race going on in Kansas this year, correct?

Remember, we have certain people who believe if Obama picks Seblius that Kansas will flip to him. Maybe they just want to show us what an uphill battle he has.

[Lief 🗽]

If I remember correctly, Kerry was also only leading by about 7 in California early on. Doesn't mean he didn't win comfortably.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

So why is McCain doing so well as compared to Bush?

Because Bush is an even bigger idiot.

[MODU]

Just goes to show how screwy doing polls this far out can actually be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I remember correctly, Kerry was also only leading by about 7 in California early on. Doesn't mean he didn't win comfortably.

He ended up winning it with a lead of just under 10.

[Tender Branson]

SurveyUSA released a new WA state poll as well:

Obama: 53%
McCain: 40%

Clinton: 48%
McCain: 45%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=652bf5a0-ebbb-42de-9506-28376dc9abc3

[Lief 🗽]

If I remember correctly, Kerry was also only leading by about 7 in California early on. Doesn't mean he didn't win comfortably.

He ended up winning it with a lead of just under 10.

I would call 12 points more Democratic than the national margin a comfortable win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If I remember correctly, Kerry was also only leading by about 7 in California early on. Doesn't mean he didn't win comfortably.

He ended up winning it with a lead of just under 10.

I would call 12 points more Democratic than the national margin a comfortable win.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't a comfortable win (it clearly was).

[12th Doctor]

So to sum up what we are seeing in the polls, Obama does better in the popular vote, but Hillary significantly exceeds him in EV performance.  Hey, democrats, how do you win an election again?

If Obama is the nominee, then the Dems are locked out of Florida.  Michigan, Ohio, PA and New Jersey are all toss-ups.  Save Ohio, if the McCain wins any two of those states, then the game is over for the Democrats.  Also, Massachusetts is in play!?  Enough polls have come out to show that this is not a fluke.  Obama hardly puts anything into play that the Democrats didn't win in 2004.  Colorado and Nevada... big deal.

On the other hand, Clinton is running ahead in Ohio and PA and puts Florida in play.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If Obama is the nominee, then the Dems are locked out of Florida.

To be honest, who the hell needs Florida? That's the one state that's pushed the party to the right by making the Democrats futilely chase its electoral votes.

The Democrats can win without Florida - and should. They should focus on the Midwest.

[Gustaf]

If I remember correctly, Kerry was also only leading by about 7 in California early on. Doesn't mean he didn't win comfortably.

He ended up winning it with a lead of just under 10.

I would call 12 points more Democratic than the national margin a comfortable win.

I think his point was that if you win by 9.95% leading by 7% is not "only" or underestimating or anything like that. It is simply within margin of error of the actual result. So Obama or Clinton leading by 7% shouldn't be a surprise either. It's exactly what one should expect (especially since the margin often grows a little bit once undecideds start making up their minds).

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If Obama is the nominee, then the Dems are locked out of Florida.

To be honest, who the hell needs Florida? That's the one state that's pushed the party to the right by making the Democrats futilely chase its electoral votes.

The Democrats can win without Florida - and should. They should focus on the Midwest.

Al Gore needed Florida.

So to sum up what we are seeing in the polls, Obama does better in the popular vote, but Hillary significantly exceeds him in EV performance.  Hey, democrats, how do you win an election again?

If Obama is the nominee, then the Dems are locked out of Florida.  Michigan, Ohio, PA and New Jersey are all toss-ups.  Save Ohio, if the McCain wins any two of those states, then the game is over for the Democrats.  Also, Massachusetts is in play!?  Enough polls have come out to show that this is not a fluke.  Obama hardly puts anything into play that the Democrats didn't win in 2004.  Colorado and Nevada... big deal.

On the other hand, Clinton is running ahead in Ohio and PA and puts Florida in play.

You're forgetting the great state of Iowa, full of affluent, highly educated voters! Other than Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada, Obama does not put any states into play. Virginia is one the liberals dream about as being a state Obama could win, but I don't see him beating McCain there. Obama puts Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia out of reach, and makes Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio and Michigan competitive. With Hillary, she probably would win West Virginia, Arkansas, and make Missouri, Ohio, Florida, and Kentucky close. She may lose Washington, Connecticut (possibly) and Oregon, but if she won Florida and Ohio, she wouldn't need it.

The point is, the election is much less certain for the Democrats with Obama. He could end up holding all of the Kerry states, but chances are he won't. Saying that you don't need Florida is just a ploy to cover up your reserves about him. The Democrats need to win 2/3 big three states. They can't rely on Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico. Iowa is probably the only sure thing in that list. New Mexico isn't solid Dem by any means, and I doubt the Richardson endorsement will make a whole lot of difference.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Al Gore needed Florida.

Not if he'd focused on Colorado, Missouri, and West Virginia, the way a Democrat should.

He could have just written off the whole right-to-scab world except Iowa and still won.

[Alcon]

Al Gore needed Florida.

Not if he'd focused on Colorado, Missouri, and West Virginia, the way a Democrat should.

He could have just written off the whole right-to-scab world except Iowa and still won.

Al Gore lost Colorado by over 8 points.

But that's OK.  Instead he should have focused on ending the rampant fraud in Kentucky where he clearly received a 2-to-1 victory.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Al Gore lost Colorado by over 8 points.

If he was allowed to spend a thing there, he would have won it.

But no. The DLC told him we need "FLOOOOOOOOOORIDA!!!"

[agcatter]

Probably could have won kentucky also, eh Bandit.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Probably could have won kentucky also, eh Bandit.

He would have, but for the DLC's scumbaggery.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Young people in Kentucky must really hate Obama.  Clinton also does better among African-Americans, so I don't know what happened there.

Also, why can't Obama seem to do well in Massachusetts?  This still baffles me.

They really like the Clintons there... I truly believe that has a lot to do with it. 

....and racism.

I haven't seen any polls out of Rhode Island, but is there any similar effect noticable?

No, Obama does fine in Rhode Island.  Mainly because Deval Patrick isn't governor there.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

How much do these stations pay for these polls?

In my past experience, a decent poll with a MoE of about 4 or 5 will run you $2,000 if done by live, non-accented operators.  SUSA's costs may be lower, because they use automated response.  Basically...it's not expensive to do.

I can make a call a minute, or 180 calls in three hours between 5:30 pm and 8:30 pm, or 540 calls over three nights. Assuming a 20% response rate, six people can make enough calls. Assuming a payment rate of $10 an hour over 5 people over 9 hours each, that is $450. I can fit all of them into the basement of my house. So what is to stop me from picking 3,240 random names out of the White pages for a particular locality, and spend $450 to conduct my own poll?

Or rather, what is to stop the Atlas forum from collectively conducting a poll? If we had 20 volunteers, each would only need to make (600 x 5 / 20) = 150 calls, which can be made in the space of three hours. All we would need is for one person to cut the list. Then there is a simple formula to calculate margin of error. If our poll comes out as better than a reputable pollster, we have just established ourselves, gentlemen!

There's nothing to stop you (us?) persay, but there is more to polling than just asking questions.  It is almost a science to properly rotate questions and ask them in the right order, and it crucial to find people who have no attachment to the results of the poll reading the choices to the people.  Bias is really easy to pollute a poll, and it takes a good pollster to filter that stuff out best as possible.