Way to buy into the media narrative Todd.
Other polls coompletly disagre, but hey, if its on MSNBC, its gotta be right, right?
sources please?
I just ran across this new Pew Poll which is not favorable to Clinton in anyway:
Obama leads Clinton nationally
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 49 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 39 percent
OF INTEREST:
The two rivals' standings in the Pew Research Center poll have changed little from late February, the latest indication that so far Obama has weathered the controversy over provocative sermons by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080327/ap_o n_el_pr/poll2008_national
So, in this poll he hasn't lost any standing at all, despite the Wright controversy, very interesting.
Those polls taken many weeks apart don't show what actually happened with Obama and Clinton's standing. Obama's went down significantly, then went back up after the (hillary-hating) media climaxed over his Philly speech. Go here and scroll down a little:
http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
Nobody knows, though, really. Below are the Gallup tracking polls since March 7. The yellow highlighted days are the only statistically significant (margin of error of 3%) days:
It sounds fun...
That wasn't even about that. It was an even-handed and thoughtful post, one that actually spoke well about the party instead of a candidate.
You, sir, are a troll of the worst magnitude.
You are 100% correct. I'm surprised this wasn't written in all caps, as usual.
Why are we siting MSNBC opinion pieces and polls as fact when other opinion pieces and polls diff wildly?
I expected better from you, Todd. Stop buying into the MSM narrative.
"Why are we siting MSNBC opinion pieces and polls as fact when other opinion pieces and polls diff wildly?"
Current ones? Do share.
Gallup's daily tracking polls, See my post above.
Yeah - especially when other polls say the opposite - like this:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/ 03/25/polls-show-obama-damaged-by-revere nd-wright.html
Add that to the fact that MSNBC ha to explain that they OVERSAMPLED AA's in the poll - you know, the people least likely to be affected by the Wright comments and probably the most likely to like Obama's speech and support him anyways?
Once again, oversampling is done to provide statistically significant results on certain sub-groups. The overall results are weighted by the general population, so it has no impact on the top-lines of the poll.
Over samples but not over represented. There is a difference. This is called stratified sampling. It's a good thing to know when you're looking at polls.
Oversampling does not mean what you think it means.
Get your facts straight. They oversample smaller populations so the accuracy of the statistical sample equals the larger groups. They then ADJUST before including them in the full poll results so they are not over represented. NBC confirmed that is in fact what they did.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/27/827746.aspx
not sure how combining the opinions of 100 more AA's into the 77 and adding that result, esp. considering it's got an MOE of over 7%, gives any better result than adding the 177. And how is the higher MOE factored in?
When pollsters poll a population, they don't poll exactly 13% AAs, 11% caucasian Hispanics, 53% women, etc., etc. They poll who they get to a significant sample size, then weight the responses so that the answers they DID get are proportionally represented in the final number.
In this case, they wanted to know what AAs thought in particular, and they needed some minimum number of them to get a number with statistical significance. So they surveyed more of them ON PURPOSE and weighted them less. The adjustment ss the same thing that happens in every poll randomly, it was just forced into the effect.
and the higher MOE?
Not sure what you're asking here -- yes, the smaller sample size has a bigger MoE than the group as a whole, but lower than it would if it were a proportional percentage... which is the whole point of oversampling: to reduce the MoE on your subset.
If your going to troll rate my comment in a different diary, you could at least give an explanation. Nothing I said was inflammatory. Defend yourself if you will.
