Here is your favorite Gallup daily tracking poll, which shows Barack Obama beating John McCain by a million points in recent days. Oh and what’s this, it’s another Gallup poll, in collaboration with USA Today, which shows WALNUTS! winning by four points. Why is Gallup being so gay? [Gallup, USA Today]
Previous post: The New Cover Of Your Favorite Magazine
Next post: We’ll Go With ‘More Choice Words’
{ 37 comments }
Au contraire, Gallup swings both ways.
If you realy want an accurate projection of who is going to win this, ask a bookie.
You dance with the fellah whut brung ya.
Something tells me the USA Today folks used their own extra special, multicolored, monosyllabic version of statistics to crunch those numbers.
Obviously USA Today is working for the bitters.
Correction: Gallup is Gay-For-Pay.
All of the polls are from poll land. Don’t forget poll land.
Is it just me, or does hearing “Gallup Poll” make anyone else want to be fucked by a horse?
Okay so the USA Today poll has something to do with “likely voters” who aren’t registered, because McCain could theoretically energize them. Forgive me if I’m not shaking in my boots.
Gallup poll has sex with men? Is he cute? Anyone already been with him and can tell me if he’s any good?
47.29% of all statistics are wrong.
[re=45775]Fata Morgana[/re]: It’s 2-1 Barry, as everyone knows. If pollsters and the media had to put their mone and kneecaps where their mouth is, we’d be seeing none of this “close race” bulshit.
[re=45786]ronaldpagan[/re]: They should also take into account McCain’s theoretical fall off the stage at the debates. So what if it hasn’t happened yet and might never happen? It’s possible!
[re=45786]ronaldpagan[/re]: Who is a likely voter? In this poll, Frank says, that was determined by how much thought people have given to the election, how often they say they vote and whether they plan to vote in the election in November.
So…completely imaginary, provisional, short-termed and the OPPOSITE of “likely” in every sense of the word.
If you are the republicans, you keep floating stories like this of how close the race is, in spite of what the reality shows.
Then come election day, the machines win it for McCain. Then the MSM says, “Novak was right, there was a surprise at the polls.”
[re=45786]ronaldpagan[/re]: If McCain is going to energize anyone he should probably start with himself. What a lackluster, ghost of a man.
bunny with a whip, call me!
actually, i think those people are totally stingy with their weed
Polling this early is like watching Midget porn. It’s fun to look at but you aren’t going to learn much of practical value.
I don’t believe polls that swing both ways should be able to adopt statistics.
Error. Bars.
The daily poll was taken among registered mullahs in the madrasahs of the Pakistani border regions. I therefore have no reason to doubt itself reliability. Ich bin ein taliban.
“If you are the republicans, you keep floating stories like this of how close the race is, in spite of what the reality shows.”
How could it even be close? No one on Wonkette is voting for McCain…
[re=45918]Rockwell[/re]: That’s just because if Hillary isn’t running, they’d all rather abstain.
Wait, why isn’t Hillary leading by a blowout? Is it because Gallup is sexist?
As for the difference between the tracking and USA TODAY/Gallup polls, Frank says not to read too much into it. “Statistical noise” may be largely to blame.
OK, so you admit your tracking poll and this poll are bullshit, and are so inaccurate that huge differences can be chalked up to “statistical noise.”
um… RON PAULZ!
So who the fuck is Jill?
[re=45775]Fata Morgana[/re]: Or these folks, which is sorta the same. Dig the wisdom of this crowd…
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm
Gallup, the ultimate flip-flopper.
[re=46018]serj![/re]: OK since no one in the snobby wonkette “community” could be bothered to reply to me (oh that’s right it’s f’in happy hour, sorry!!!) I had to go back and re-read the lameass article so I could reply to myself that oh, you stupid moron Jill is Jill Lawrence, who co-wrote the lameass article (seriously it took two of them to write that drivel?), but then that begs the question (usage?) why is Mark whatshisname lamely referring to his co-author in the body of the article? That’s just, well, lame. As was the poll and the reasoning behind it (like why would so-called “laudatory”–and what’s with the quotes Jack and Jill, like do you think that putting the word in quotes makes it sound official and true, instead of totally republican talking pointy?–coverage of Obama’s trip energize repubs anyway? like repubs said, well oh shit man he’s an F’in rockstar and shit I so guess we better get our lardasses in gear before the old geezer get hogstomped, or whatever those common folk say!!!) Anyway, thanks serj! for having the decency to reply!
[re=46072]serj![/re]: You’re quite welcome, dude! Hey, and cool avatar, if it wasn’t so fucking small and shit!
(OK I’m done.)
[re=46077]serj![/re]:
What?
serj! understood me! (and if you don’t mind I was talking to myself!!!)
i really have to admit, the serj is working.
Gallup, like all bisexuals, leaves both possibilities open.
I think I’ve been on that ride, at Magic Mountain. I puked on my way to the polls and never made it. Turns out Kerry gave them Ohio so it didn’t matter.
USA Today poll’s likely vote model drops new registrants. That’s 2% of McCain’s votes and 16% of Obama’s.
Because, as we know, all of those new young voter and minority voters are too lazy and shiftless to actually show up to vote on election day, no matter how enthusiastic they are.
Comments on this entry are closed.