See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7615449.stm

In addition to be a record in terms of amount raised, 500,000 new donors signed up last month. The amount raised eclipses Obama's previous best fundraising month (February) by $9million.

Just when you were on the verge of allowing MSM to manufacture sythetic reality, suggesting a decline in the Obama campaign, Reality, itself, intruded, posters!

No shit.... lets see the election votes correlate. My bet is a lot of those donors only have cell phones. Silly text messengers.

I find it interesting that the BBC is reporting this.

Are there any U.S. MSM dishing it out?

I haven't heard it... the most objective news I've been getting has been coming from bbc and guardian at times.

"Please, America, elect Barack Obama. On behalf of the world."~ Russell Brand

Yes, but don't forget, those are exactly the sentiments that the RW leadership wants to push down into the low-information RW trogs.

If the REST of the world wants OBAMA, there must be something WRONG with him!

I only saw it online at abcnews.com.....it will not get out there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_kgc8j8GVU

The articles were not about August. They were about the post convention money. For some reason it has declined considerably. That is why you see Obama heading to Hollywood for fundraisers. He has no business being anywhere near California if he didnt have to to raise money. McCain has already received his federal money and with Palin now aboard and energizing the party base, money is flowing into the republican side. Every day that Obama has to waste going to a fundraiser in a blue state is a day lost to campaign in a tossup state. And the more states that go to toss up or lean republican is that much more time and money needed to turn them around

Than If That Was Post Convention Fund raising 66 Million Dollars In Three Weeks.

10 million in 24 hours.

stupid conservatives, wtf do they know about anything.

Which also means it doesn't take into account the post-Palin speech bump.

I know that myself and an untold number of others IMMEDIATELY donated triple what I had over the entire primaries to any candidate.

thank you that is just as astounishing as it being done in a month...RW talking are not sensible!

I didn't know there were that many celebrities in hollywood!!

The test is what the average donation is. Every month up to this point, about 50% of Obama's donations hae been below $200, while the bulk of McCain's donations have been from $2300 + donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=X

It shows in their campaign e-mails too. Obama's emails ask foe $5, $10, $20. I got one from the McCain campaign asking for $100.

The articles to which the above indirectly refers were INCONGRUENT and SKEWED, as is confirmed by the actual fundraising outcome. MSM skewing of why Obama went anywhere on the campaign trail and MSM incongruence on the reasons why Obama declined public funding are just that: MSM skewing and incongruence.

The less said about msm, and, in fact, better still, the less peole actually tune in to that crap the better. The reality is in what the voters themselves do; such as the action of donating record amounts of their hard-earned and dwindling money to something they believe in.

$66million speaks volumns, posters

It also drowns out the propaganda in a fundamental way.

Now, all we have to do is detect vote count fraud effectively.

It's really that simple.

Didn't you start a thread last week saying that donations were down and the campaign was begging donors?

WRONG!

Everything you just said is a lie! Why do you keep doing that? You are not going to dampen spirits here. Why? Because we know how to read.

Breaking records AFTER your boy picks the liar. From 500,000 INDIVIDUAL DONORS. I doubt McSoisgonnagethisasskicked HAS 500,000 donors total. OUCH!

You are always wrong, that's what's so right about you. Keep up the good work!

Yeah, how dumb of the polling companies to never have thought of this, huh? Why, they must be just the dumbest people in the whole world to develop all these statistics and formulas, building databases, and to have done so without ever finding a way to take into account the fact that a great many people have cell phones and no land lines! The folks here at RRMB are much smarter and could teach those smarty pants a thing or three about how to conduct a reliable poll, huh?

And to think, these firms generate hundreds of million of dollars in revenues each year from clients who are obviously even dumber because THEY haven't realized what some posters here at RRMB know!

What fools those campaigns, the media and so many industries are to pay for polling that some RRMBers can tell them are useless because many people have only cell lines and not land lines! Obama and McCain are probably the kings of all these dolts, because they, too, are paying pollsters, and nether of THEIR campaigns has apparently realized the utter stupidity of those goofy pollsters, and haven't recognized the gigantic hole in the reliability of polls. When will Obama or McCain wake up and realize that so many people have cell lines and no land lines, and so the poll results - those that aren't specifically dictated in advance by dark forces with an agenda to fool the people - are completely useless?!

Excuse me now, I'm going to go over to the thread that is for ridiculing those nut jobs at NASA who are trying to send men into space. Apparently THEY don't know there is no oxygen in space, and anyone sent up there is going to die in a few minutes from the lack of air! Then I'm off to the 9.11 forums for a dissertation from an English Lit. student on structural engineering, because I can never really get enough of people who have no clue WTF they're talking about ridiculing the stupidity of those who do.

Incidentally, for anyone curious about some facts on the issue, here's one link to a study that was done on the issue, and here's a practically elderly (relative to the issue) article on the subject. Though it may astonish some of you to hear it, RRMBers and Ron Paul supporters were NOT the first to have thought of the problem.

bushwa,

The key is that polling is, indeed, a highly sophisticated industry. It is also one that has an agenda. Polling, like electronic voting itself is not easy to decipher or to show how he bias is built in. Certainly, and as you state (albeit indirectly) polling firms, those who work for them, are not dumb. If anything, they are a lot smarter than we are. That is why we continue to fall for their data, time and time again.

I love all the doom and gloom posted by the Cons on the board suggesting that Obama's going to lose.

Documentation, please? A link - something that isn't a ranting blog? (It appears a GREAT many people consider polls with results they do not like or with which they disagree to be synonymous with unreliable and suspect polls. Funny, I've NEVER seen a single poll result posted at RRMB indicating wildly enthusiastic support for a candidate or an issue popular with liberals accompanied by a note to the effect of, "Look at the lies these corporate lackeys are trying to get us to buy into now! We will NOT be fooled!" Oddly, it is ONLY the polls with bad or less than thrilling news that prompt assurances that the whole thing is rigged.)

I concede, I'm assuming the "agenda" alleged here is something OTHER than obtaining reliable analyses in exchange for compensation.

What IS that mysterious agenda, and where is the documentation thereof?

Wait a minute, bushwa. This is not a subject that should require documentation as that is equivalent to reinventing the wheel. By definition, whenever a process asserts an overall conclusion involving the alleged patterns of what some 60million people will do at a later date; namely, how they'll vote on 11/4, based on the outcome of what a specifically selected sample +/- 1000 of them have allegedly said, is an agenda laden process.

There's nothing controversial about the claim that polling and pollsters have an agenda.

And, as a matter of fact, polls that might suggest a 10+ point lead for Obama, would almost certainly be defined as "RV" standing for Registered Voters, taken in proportion to the number of registered Ds versus registered Rs.

You do acknowledge, without the necessity of "documentation' that there are more registered Ds nationwide than there are Rs, don't you?

So, on that basis, all polls should poll more Ds than Rs. However, pollsters ALMOST NEVER poll more Ds than Rs in any given sample. Instead, they almost always poll more Rs than Ds and they also use a variety of assumptions in polling various numbers of Is (independents).

I'm prepared to discuss this, but I see no necessity to restate the ABCs of polling methodology here as I assume you know this already.

For sake of a baseline, however, what is your understanding of the typical polling sample and of the percentage of party affiliation typically used?

Other sources than the bbc:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/o...i_n_126259.html

$30 was mine.

Hey MOTR, wanna answer post #15?

Well, then I guess I'm just dumber than the average bear, because I am continuing to ask for substantiation of the claim. Either you can document it, or you cannot. Are RRMB standards too stringent for you?



If it's something other than the two points listed in my initial question, something OTHER than obtaining a reliable result in exchange for compensation, there sure as hell is something "controversial" about it. If the "agenda" you allege were NOT "controversial," then WhyTF would you waste time alleging it exists?



WOW! CHECK OUT THE LINE ABOVE THAT I UNDERLINED AND BOLDED. You may as well have handwritten the statement, "I do not know the first good goddamn thing about political polling," then sworn to it under oath, had it notarized and signed by 3 witnesses.

Thanks for citing an easy example that provides an opportunity to demonstrate for you as to why some folks having a little bit of information can be so fucking obnoxious when they're not intellectually developed enough to recognize there's also a great deal they DON'T know.

Dem registrations DO generally outnumber Republican registrations. And sampling DOES generally include more Republicans! What a find! OMG, what a scandal! WhyTF has no one ever noticed this before?! You have single-handedly broken the code and revealed the gigantic fraud! YAY!

Boyo, if your assertion of a nefarious agenda relies on that, you have just flushed your theory down the toilet. See, um, actually, my friend, this observation of yours is because Republicans typically have a significantly higher turnout rate than Democrats - often high enough not only to balance the registration numbers, but to even overcome them.

If one is conducting polling on a partisan political race and establishes a sampling that directly represents registration figures, they're going to get useless numbers that will humiliate them when the election is over. For folks interested in and knowledgeable with regard to polling, that reality is sort of a kindergarten basic.

Gotta tell you, Jam, I'm trying desperately to think of an analogy for this statement of yours that will reasonably communicate the amazing extent of your inadvertent admission. I don't claim to be good at analogies, but this is perhaps a bit like me maintaining I am the world's foremost authority on mathematics, and starting out by declaring that 2 + 2 = 832,165.07

Sampling weights for political parties have to be adjusted from case to case, and the offices, ballot measures and even the candidates in play in a given election have an impact on the weighting, from national and statewide samples, right down to the individual precinct level. (I suspect naming Palin forced virtually ALL of the polling firms to reassess and adjust their sampling.)

There is no across the board rule of thumb such as 135 Democratic registrations = 98 Republican registrations to apply across the board. But that's why people who know WTF they're doing - like statisticians, math scholars, marketers, sociologists, historical researchers and such - are doing the polling, instead of dorks who are simply able to count registrations and scribble hash marks on a piece of paper, then tally them up five at a time.



Actually, you have unintentionally and unknowingly demonstrated that you're not past the "A" of polling - I'm guessing you can count. But you are nowhere near the Bs and Cs yet.

Now, unsolicited I've already provided documentation demonstrating that those polling folks were (gasp) well aware of and involved in study years ago of the "hot topic" that Ron Paul's supporters, and apparently you and a couple of RRMBers recently "discovered." I think that before answering any questions from you, I'll just hold off until you provide the documentation and substantiation that I've asked for a couple of times now.

As soon as the MSM no longer depends upon corporate ad dollars, you'll see the story.

Oh shit! UPDATE! As I am typing this, the local NBC news affiliate just announced Obama's fund raising success. And I live in FUCKING HARCORE RED STATE ARIZONA. Not mention McLame's back yard (one of many back yards he owns).

AND they just ran a snippet on the Tina Fey/Sarah Palin SNL skit.

PROGRESS BABY!

Recommended reading for dumb-ass, lying, know-nothing, conservatives.

Well, the Associated Press reported it yesterday, before the BBC, but here's the most recent iteration. This is the Reuters version of the story. The New York Times reported it here yesterday. Oh, some outfit called CNN also reported on it.

Heck, even FOX News even carried it on their web site. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't watch the net, and so I don't know if they reported it on the air.)

MSNBC did report it on the air. And here's a link to the report George Stephanopolous did about it today on ABC News. And, here's the report from CBS. It ALSO made it on the air there, too.

I'm afraid that's all the reports I'm personally familiar with, but I'm astonished to find that apparently the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC News, MSNBC, CNS News, New York Times and FOX neither individually, nor cumulatively count as the "MSM."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/t...y_n_115473.html

Forget agenda... its about flaws. I don't care how sophisticated their data analyses are. Do you forget the primaries had turnouts differing from polling data? That is not the norm... and I would attribute much of this disparity to new voter turnout; which is primarily a young cellphone generation.

I read the Pew Study. The Pew Study was inconclusive to me. It left many variables out of it's "research" in regards to lifestyles, content of questions, etc. I work in an industry that USED to rely on polling for our development. We no longer hire pollsters. Personally, I don't know why anyone is trying to justify polling. Politics are too nuanced today and with too much bad information floating out there from blogs, pundits and the lack of reporting by the MSM. How can the public be trusted to offer an informed opinion on a topic when they themselves lack basic understanding of the issues?

And by the way, great news for Obama raising that cash. I gave and it felt good!

bushwa,

You state:

"Dem registrations DO generally outnumber Republican registrations. And sampling DOES generally include more Republicans! What a find! OMG, what a scandal! WhyTF has no one ever noticed this before?! You have single-handedly broken the code and revealed the gigantic fraud! YAY!"

You further obfuscate that acknowledgment by saying, in substance, that it is a function of divine revelation and of scientific purity and is in the nature of an inalienable right for all those with both very high IQs and a paid position with a polling company to routinely sample more Rs than Ds.

I challenge that assumption. I here assert it is fallacious to do that. And, I do so in the certainty that election fraud is not new, merely more pronounced and is becoming more offensive to an awakening public.

Your haughty tone, notwithstanding that polls routinely sample more Rs than Ds is, to me, indicative of a willingness to accept, to annouce, indeed to proclaim, that you know that US elections are routinely fraudulent and that polling is a component of that process.

Hear this: There is no validity to sampling more Rs than Ds when Ds have a numerical advantage in registration that is growing larger, as we speak.

This statement does not have to be sourced as it is true on its face. You cannot contradict it. Rather, all you can do is appeal to "authority" in a context where I assert the authority you appeal to has an agenda. That agenda consists in maintaining the fiction that sampling more Rs than Ds can accurately predict how the vote count will turn out.

Posters, it is high time we come face to face with the reality of election vote count fraud. That is the issue.

You had better re-read your own source.

a. i suppose polling companies cant make a living if they dont produce accurate results...i hope they are way off because of cell phones

b. it is the EXIT polling we need to look at on November 5th, the discrepancies can be seen there...any poll taken prior to an event can for any number of reasons be wrong, but exit polls have traditionally been very accurate...if 59% of those exiting the polls voted for obama, and mccain ends up winning that precinct, that would be a problem

The FDR/ Landon contest of '36 comes to mind.



Which begs the question: Anyone out there signing up to work for their local department of elections? One of the best ways to prevent skullduggeries from going on is to be one of the last people at the poll helping calculate totals.

I'm going to be a QAS at my precinct this November.

The Pew study was not offered to assert that there has been definitive solution to the very real conundrum and challenge created by the advent of cell phones as the main telephone contact, and the declining use of land lines. (Relatively accurate results seem to imply that, but that's a level of expertise I don't claimto have.) More over, there are have been several similar studies, from sources as diverse as the U Mass School of Polling Studies, to the International Market Research Association addressing the same issue. Pew's was simply the most accessible.

The point of offering it was to advise those who appear to believe they or their blog sources, or perhaps the Ron Paul campaign, have uncovered or realized in recent months some incredible dark secret of which the industry, the media, players and longtime observers have either remained stupidly ignorant, and/or have actively worked to conceal.

To the contrary, the current and potential impact of cell phones on the polling process is something polling firms have been taking into account over a period of years in the process of developing their sampling formulas, presumably to varying degrees of success. In addition, they are looking at means of surmounting the numerous barriers that currently exist to including cell phone customers in polling as the percentage of those who only have cell lines continues to grow.



I work in a couple of industries for which polling is considered the Word of God, and I believe their use is helping to kill those industries. In the very best light, the dependence on polling has contributed in large part to utterly decimating the quality of the products in the seemingly bottomless goal of appealing to the id of the largest number in advertising's most desirable demographic. If I could wave a magic wand and take polling and focus groups out of entertainment and the news business, I'd wave that wand until my arm fell off.

In the field of politics and presidential races, I believe polling results to be, at best, wholly unnecessary to literally all voters. As I wrote a few days ago, they contribute nothing substantive to the process of weighing a candidate. They exacerbate the "horse race" aspects of campaign coverage, and they play a role in campaign funding - leading contributors to behave like "investors" trying to stick with stocks on the way up, and dump stocks headed into the tank. Where the candidate whose numbers are falling happens to be a great candidate, that's disastrous. In a case where the candidate whose numbers are climbing is a vacuous moron or craven weather vane, that's disastrous.

Every person here knows that, if all the polls have Barack Obama 25 points ahead of John McCain on October 1 - and if even the most strident skeptics were convinced those polls were irrefutably reliable - none of it would make a damned bit of difference if, on October 2nd, Obama turned up drunk at a televised campaign event, slapped his wife, and grabbed the ass of a 20 year old campaign volunteer. If McCain were ahead 25 points, then broke into tears on camera while mumbling in Vietnamese, the previous day's polling would be meaningless. And while the real life spread is much narrower, real-life events have a similar effects on the ebb and flow of poll results.

I do not defend or "justify" the use of polling. I think we'd be better off without it, though I admit I'd be curious to know the polling numbers just prior to an election.

I am only refuting the casual and nakedly ignorant assertions of those who make unfounded charges they can't substantiate that virtually all polling is corrupt, and that the results are being controlled by unseen overlords with nefarious agendas.

Polling results regarded as good news for liberals have been and are still routinely posted throughout RRMB without being appended by posts casting aspersions on the results. Concerns about, for example, land lines and cell phones vanish. Polls with unhappy or discouraging results are routinely answered with posts deriding the honesty, integrity and efficacy of polling. Even considering the documentation I've provided that refutes some of the dark implications about polling technology, that hypocritical pattern of a double standard stands as the best evidence that most efforts to discredit polling results are simply efforts to "explain away" information people don't like to hear. It's little different from a conservative Republican seeing a report about John McCain having lied in a campaign commercial, and dismissing the story as the product of that "damned liberal media."

I was puzzled by this portion of your post:



I may be misunderstanding, but it appears you're maintaining a voter's opinion premised upon bad information somehow taints the poll tabulating opinions. That is, if some enormous segment of the voting population declares they will vote McCain, and won't support Obama because he's a Muslim infiltrator bent on US destruction, a poll concluding that large segment is voting McCain will not be accurate. But I'd maintain, perhaps obviously, that the validity of the voter's opinion is immaterial. The poll is counting how many intend to vote for this guy, and how many intend to vote for that one, and how/why they've formed those opinions hasn't an iota of relevance to the poll - save for the fact that some similar piece of nonsense may change their opinion again in two weeks. Not to worry, there will be six more polls between now and then.

i am inventing new voting machine., simply press your thumb on screen and the machine senses what your needs are and it votes accordingly


the 1% at the top will always vote repub, the extremely religious morons, another 25% will always vote republican

everybody elses sensory button will vote dem