PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:12 PM
Original message |
Since when is ARG reliable? |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 01:13 PM by Kerry2008
Some of you are pushing this ARG poll that shows Obama leading in Texas.
Wasn't ARG the poll that had Hillary up by a good margin before her third place finish in Iowa?
Haven't they been wrong most of the time?
Wasn't it just last week that some report showed ARG was one of the most unreliable polls out there?
Is it only when Barack is down in the ARG polls that you dismiss them?
|
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yup -- they were dissing ARG last week, too |
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. Funny how things change. And so soon too n/t |
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
14. Look at the ARG thread. |
|
A lot of people don't buy it. But Rassmussen is no better. IRV has it at 8 points. Right in the middle, so I don't get what the argument is.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The second it showed Obama winning. |
|
ARG has been ignored almost entirely since their Iowa numbers were garbage.
|
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
17. Very true. Until it shows Obama winning, then it's "reliable" |
|
I remember when I was for Edwards and I warned about the ARG poll showing Hillary ahead in Iowa.
They just aren't reliable.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
27. Only for the newbies. The Obama oldtimers dismissed the results. |
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Since when are any polls 2.5 weeks out reliable? |
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Here's one from YESTERDAY showing her CRUSHING him in Texas: |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Rasmussen isnt reliable either: See my post below. |
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. See, you're falling into the same trap as the ARG pushers |
|
Texas polls don't mean squat at this point. I would ignore them for the next two weeks if I were you.
|
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. You should tell that to your own Team then. |
|
And I don't need polls to know Hillary is leading in Texas.
Texas is Clinton country :)
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
16. SHe is probably up by aroun 8-11 points |
|
And Obama hasnt stepped foot in Texas yet.
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
19. We've got a team member meeting at 2:30 EST |
thoughtcrime1984
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. No polls matter, see you in 2.5 weeks! |
The Ghost
(557 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
them being very reliable in 2004, and mostly with primaries, not caucuses. How was ARG with their SC/NH, etc etc polls this year? Im asking, cause I really dont know. Was IA their only screw up?
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |
5. According to This Graph, Rasmussen is 19th most reliable, and ARG is 21 |
|
I think this just proves they all suck http://www.surveyusa.com/
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
15. Wow how low ye have fallen Mason-Dixon. |
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
18. Mason Dixon had Hillary winning by 6 in Alabama and Obama winning by only six in Georgia |
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message |
12. It isn't. ARG is shit. |
QC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message |
13. When they started showing Obama ahead. |
|
The moment they have him behind they will revert to being a shitty polling outfit.
|
NJSecularist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:22 PM
Original message |
ARG is terrible, but so is Rasmussen |
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
ARG is crap. So is Rassmusen. IRV has it at 8 points. That's pretty much in the middle. So what's the point of arguing.
Also a lot of Obama people in the ARG thread say they don't trust it. Funny thing is that ARG always underestimates Obama's support.
|
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Underestimates? Yes, because ARG is out to get Obama. |
Renew Deal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
25. I didn't even imply that. |
|
But they have always showed Obama with less support than he actually has (until maybe now).
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
that all polling firms are fairly unreliable and their methodology is all very similar. And there high margins of error are due to rapidly chaning opinions brought on by one candidate surging, and the other circling the drain.
|
elixir
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Obama contributes the most to superdelegates campaigns, courting their vote |
|
Obama: $695,000 Clinton: $200,000
|
loveangelc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
23. they were rigt in mo... |
PresidentObama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
26. And wrong almost everywhere else... |
NJSecularist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
28. They were right in California, Maryland and Tennessee |
|
Which Super Tuesday polls were they wrong about?
|
MadBadger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
Tarc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Why, since it shows the O-Bots what they want to hear, of course! |
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-15-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |
31. It is not and more than one Obama supporters said so. Why do you feel necessary to waste a thread on |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-15-08 02:10 PM by Mass
that. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4603062&mesg_id=4604189BTW since when is any poll that far from an election right, and I do not see you object to threads posting polls with Clinton ahead.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:28 AM
Response to Original message |