The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:35:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 155 156 157 158 159 [160] 161 162 163 164 165 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1206726 times)
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3975 on: February 25, 2010, 11:31:15 AM »

So Uni polls aren't terrible but Rasmussen cannot be relied upon?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3976 on: February 25, 2010, 11:43:49 AM »




Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%

Disapprove 54%

Identical for 5 days.

Obama's "strongly" numbers both dropped.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3977 on: February 25, 2010, 01:09:39 PM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...
Logged
Devilman88
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3978 on: February 25, 2010, 01:42:01 PM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

He isn't going to do that, now if it was a poll that made Obama look bad then yes he would.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3979 on: February 25, 2010, 06:00:48 PM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 

Logged
ScottM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 299


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: 4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3980 on: February 25, 2010, 07:24:07 PM »

When it actually comes down, to the nitty-gritty, I don't think the Democrats have a prayer in South Carolina. It's not at or near the top of lists of the most conservative States for no reason.

I'm not about to demand that you re-classify the poll as "suspect," even though I do believe this is probably the case, because there's not much else out there on South Carolina right now. I definitely think that if another poll from a major pollster is released, it will cast serious doubt on that one.
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3981 on: February 25, 2010, 08:13:32 PM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 



Well, do you remember back in the day when you initially decided on the "s" moniker for spurious or suspect polls?  It was when SurveyUSA initially had Virginia approval at 38/58, when the previous poll just a few weeks before had it around 47/52 or so.  Therefore, such a big and questionable change would render a poll "suspect", as I believe you yourself said.

Now, let's extrapolate that to the South Carolina poll number this time around.  The last poll out of SC had around a 50% disapproval for the President, correct?  Perhaps you can check that out.  In my opinion, a change of ~10% for no reason would qualify as "spurious", wouldn't you agree? 
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3982 on: February 25, 2010, 08:19:48 PM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 



Well, do you remember back in the day when you initially decided on the "s" moniker for spurious or suspect polls?  It was when SurveyUSA initially had Virginia approval at 38/58, when the previous poll just a few weeks before had it around 47/52 or so.  Therefore, such a big and questionable change would render a poll "suspect", as I believe you yourself said.

Now, let's extrapolate that to the South Carolina poll number this time around.  The last poll out of SC had around a 50% disapproval for the President, correct?  Perhaps you can check that out.  In my opinion, a change of ~10% for no reason would qualify as "spurious", wouldn't you agree? 

Additionally, the spurious one up in Washington was too far from the one in Oregon, which was the justification for it being suspicious. This one seems pretty out-of-whack with all the states in the region.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3983 on: February 26, 2010, 12:07:03 AM »

You might want to consider putting an "S" on that South Carolina poll, Pbrower...

Show me that it is a partisan poll and I will do better-- I will remove it.

I thought about that -- but that's about where Obama has been in South Carolina since November with no poll of any kind since December. I thought that that was something like 47%.

It's 48%-40%, which has a HUGE undecided component -- 12%. The only thing strange about the poll is the huge undecided component.  But that large undecided/no response component doesn't hide the fact that the Republicans are doing badly in South Carolina. Think about it: 28% of the people are undecided on whether they like their incumbent Senator. In what is supposed to be a good year for Republicans, an incumbent Republican Senator in a supposedly-strong Republican state should have an approval above 42%.

Rasmussen could give a harder poll at any time, and that would be enough to cut down this possible outlier.  But I also thought of the 41% F&M rating in Pennsylvania, which isn't too far out of line the other way of other polls, either. If I put an "S" on South Carolina I would also have to do so on Pennsylvania, which I think few want me to do. Just remember -- aqua isn't far from sand.  49-46 is aqua, 48-48 is white, and 47-50 is sand. 48-40  is aqua, and you would have to believe that 9 of the 12 who didn't give an opinion really think that Obama is sub-par to contradict "aqua".
 

Even so, I look at the Jesse Helms-like stances of James DeMint, the adultery-across -70-degrees-of-latitude  scandal involving the Governor, a callow racist statement by the Lieutenant Governor (the one making an analogy between stray animals and poor people, basically "The more we feed, the more they breed", a KKK slogan, by the way), and the "You lie!" outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson, and I can see South Carolina as a disaster for the GOP in 2010. It's only one state, but it is one. 



Well, do you remember back in the day when you initially decided on the "s" moniker for spurious or suspect polls?  It was when SurveyUSA initially had Virginia approval at 38/58, when the previous poll just a few weeks before had it around 47/52 or so.  Therefore, such a big and questionable change would render a poll "suspect", as I believe you yourself said.

Now, let's extrapolate that to the South Carolina poll number this time around.  The last poll out of SC had around a 50% disapproval for the President, correct?  Perhaps you can check that out.  In my opinion, a change of ~10% for no reason would qualify as "spurious", wouldn't you agree? 

A jump of 10% is not in itself a cause for a "spurious" indicator, and that did not happen in South Carolina.  It's the low disapproval -- the result of a high percentage of people best described as "undecided" -- that is suspect -- not the approval rating. There was no huge move in approval.  We are here judging approval and not disapproval. In the past four months I have seen four polls showing Obama getting approval in the 45-49 range in South Carolina. If you think that all the "undecided" are really "disapproval" then you would have a 48-52 split and the same sand color that you have seen in South Carolina for four months on my map. But think of what that means for the incumbent Senator up for re-election; he'd be down 42-57 or so, which is in Harry Reid territory.

Can we accept that South Carolina might itself be acting out of apparent character? Is that any less strange than some of the low approval ratings for President Obama in Pennsylvania?

I took the "S" mark off as other polls either repudiated or confirmed what looked like outlier polls. When Obama had approval ratings in the low 30s  in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia at the same time... something was fishy.

 
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3984 on: February 26, 2010, 11:39:49 AM »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%

Disapprove 55%

Obama's "strongly approve" number is 23%, -2; "strongly disapprove is at 43 a +3 uptick
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3985 on: February 26, 2010, 09:07:29 PM »

Michigan:

45% Approve
54% Disapprove

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?URL=/templates/ArticleMultiMediaPopup.pbs&dato=20100226&lopenr=100226061&Category=NEWS15&Params=Id=152672
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3986 on: February 27, 2010, 01:05:49 AM »


No need to include it in your map, because it`s an excellent/good bla bla bla poll by EPIC/MRA.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3987 on: February 27, 2010, 01:21:53 AM »

Maryland (Rasmussen)Sad

59% Approve
40% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Maryland was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 23, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/maryland/toplines/toplines_2010_maryland_governor_february_23_2010

South Dakota (Rasmussen)Sad

40% Approve
59% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in South Dakota was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 23, 2010 . The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/south_dakota/toplines/toplines_2010_south_dakota_governor_race_february_23_2010

North Carolina (Rasmussen)Sad

43% Approve
56% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in North Carolina was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 23, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/north_carolina/toplines/toplines_2010_north_carolina_senate_february_23_2010
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3988 on: February 27, 2010, 01:28:29 AM »

North Carolina (Elon University)Sad

50% Approve
45% Disapprove

53% Favorable
41% Unfavorable

The survey was conducted Monday, February 22nd, through Thursday, February 25th, of 2010.
During this time calls were made from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm EST. The Elon University Poll uses
CATI system software (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) in the administration of
surveys. Interviews for this survey were completed with 508 adults from North Carolina.
For a sample size of 508, there is a 95 percent probability that our survey results are within plus
or minus 4.4 percentage points (the margin of sampling error) of the actual population
distribution for any given question.

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/elonpoll_data_tables_2_26_10.pdf

Delaware (R2000/DailyKos)Sad

59% Favorable
36% Unfavorable

The Research 2000 Delaware Poll was conducted from February 22 through February 24, 2010. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/2/24/DE/455

Illinois (R2000/DailyKos)Sad

60% Favorable
36% Unfavorable

The Research 2000 Illinois Poll was conducted from February 22 through February 24, 2010. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/2/24/IL/445

Nevada (Mason Dixon)Sad

39% Favorable
46% Unfavorable
15% Neutral

This poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. of Washington, D.C. from February 22 through February 24, 2010. A total of 625 registered Nevada voters were interviewed statewide by telephone. All stated they vote regularly in state elections.

http://www.lvrj.com/hottopics/politics/polls/feb_2010_1_polls.html
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3989 on: February 27, 2010, 05:56:57 AM »
« Edited: February 27, 2010, 07:19:59 AM by pbrower2a »

NC -- two polls, and they average into the same as before. No change. DE, IL, NV not usable. MD, SD usable updates without change. MI -- EGFP results dropped.




Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months:

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), and more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Z- no recent poll (maximum 180 days) before December 1, 2009 except Montana (November 2009), which rarely gets polled.


Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3990 on: February 27, 2010, 09:55:23 AM »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%

Disapprove 55%

Obama's "strongly approve" number is 22%, -1; "strongly disapprove is at 43, unchanged.


There could be a bad sample with low "strongly approve" numbers.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3991 on: February 27, 2010, 02:53:09 PM »

He's really losing his support in the mountain west. Just a year ago there was talk that the region would become one full of Democratic and swing states. The swings in Montana, Nevada, and New Mexido, (and Colorado to a lesser extent) were profound. While I sort of expected this, it's still a strikingly swift swing against the majority party.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3992 on: February 27, 2010, 03:19:08 PM »

He's really losing his support in the mountain west. Just a year ago there was talk that the region would become one full of Democratic and swing states. The swings in Montana, Nevada, and New Mexido, (and Colorado to a lesser extent) were profound. While I sort of expected this, it's still a strikingly swift swing against the majority party.

Is Obama losing Hispanics in those states, all of a sudden?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3993 on: February 27, 2010, 07:08:16 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2010, 07:12:12 PM by pbrower2a »

He's really losing his support in the mountain west. Just a year ago there was talk that the region would become one full of Democratic and swing states. The swings in Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico, (and Colorado to a lesser extent) were profound. While I sort of expected this, it's still a strikingly swift swing against the majority party.

Is Obama losing Hispanics in those states, all of a sudden?

If Obama is losing those voters, then he will be in electoral trouble in 2012. If the pollsters aren't reaching them for any of several reason, then Obama is in better shape than polls indicate. I can't say which is so.

Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico have lots of Hispanics; Montana has few. The largest minority in Montana is First Peoples -- 7%.

1. It's possible that Hispanics (in CO, NV, and NM largely Mexican-Americans) are underrepresented in the polls, especially if they don't have landline phones. Hispanic voters are younger than the US average, and they are more likely to rely upon cell phones instead of landlines.  Pollsters can't reach cell phones. Even if Mexican-Americans, much more urban than America as a whole, have longer commutes, they are harder to reach by pollsters.

2. Except for Montana, the states broke late for Obama, mostly on economic grounds. Without the mortgage disaster that hit Mexican-Americans unusually hard (because they are younger and more likely at a lower level of income to buy into real estate), both Nevada and New Mexico went to Obama by wide margins instead of being close as many thought they would be.  Are Mexican-Americans "late deciders" in elections?  If such is so in 2010 and 2012 we could see some strange late moves in elections.

3. Many of the recent polls are by Rasmussen, of persons that Rasmussen assesses as "likely voters" which probably skew old and white.  Some people who will vote in 2010, let alone 2012, will have never voted in a local, state, or federal election. Rasmussen could poll someone 80 years old who hasn't missed an election in 57 years might seem a better bet to participate in the 2012 election than someone 15 years old now -- but not if the current 80-year-old has terminal cancer with a 6-month prognosis for survival.  Dead people, one hopes, do not vote. Hispanics, and especially Hispanic voters, skew young.

4. In 2008, Rasmussen typically underestimated the "likely vote" of 2008  until close to the election. Will 2012 be similar to 2008 in voting patterns? Your guess is as good as mine.  How good will the GOTV drives be? What sort of advertising will be on the air? Above all, will President Obama be seen then as an effective President with a promising Second Act? Will the GOP continue to trend to the Right with a tendency to alenate voters who would have been swing voters in 2004 or earlier? Again, your guess is as good as mine.    

Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3994 on: February 28, 2010, 01:22:38 AM »

I would add Arizona to the list of western states with alot of Hispanics
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3995 on: February 28, 2010, 10:00:25 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2010, 11:07:19 AM by J. J. »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45%

Disapprove 54%

Obama's "strongly approve" number is 25%, +2; "strongly disapprove is at 42, -1.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3996 on: February 28, 2010, 10:08:16 AM »

I would add Arizona to the list of western states with alot of Hispanics

Definitely.

Is Texas "Western"?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3997 on: February 28, 2010, 11:06:18 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2010, 11:12:51 AM by J. J. »

I thought I'd do a comparison with January's Rasmussen numbers:

For January, 2010, the range has been:

Approve:  44-50% 

Median:  47.0%

Disapprove:  50-55%

Median:  52.5%

Strongly Approve:  24-33%

Median:  28.5%

Strongly Disapprove:  39-43%

Median:  41.0%

For February, 2010, the range has been:

Approve:  43-50% 

Median:  46.5%

Disapprove:  49-56%

Median:  52.5%

Strongly Approve:  22-35%

Median:  28.5%

Strongly Disapprove:  37-43%

Median:  40.0%

Ironically, the numbers that have shown the most variability are Obama's "Strongly Approve" rating in both months.
Logged
nhmagic
azmagic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,097
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.62, S: 4.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3998 on: February 28, 2010, 12:25:25 PM »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3999 on: February 28, 2010, 12:40:30 PM »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

cite?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 155 156 157 158 159 [160] 161 162 163 164 165 ... 410  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.099 seconds with 10 queries.