Hi everyone,

I'd like for you to try something . Click on the link below and take a look see at all the cute little demographics they got going on.

http://abcnews.go.com/Polli...

They got gender, race , age , income level, ect. Now, after you take a look at who's supporting who based on these demographics, see if you can answer this one question for me.

Ready ? Here we go.

QUESTION:

What would the polling results look like if polling firms only contacted White Evangelical , Conservatives over the age of 65 with land line phones , but "weighted" everyone else ?(weighted means to basically make up shet based on how they "think" other groups will vote).

IF YOUR ANSWER IS :

A Fake "Tight" Race That Really Isn't , You're CORRECT !

http://www.realclearpolitic...

Have a nice day,

Dee Anna

SOURCE: ME

As someone who has worked for a Polling Firm for four years during a Presidential Election , I get really frustrated at the responses I am seeing to these pathetic polls numbers . I really wish people would stop panicking. Barack Obama is doing way better than it looks. Now, I have tried in the past to explain the differences between likely voters , adults and registered voters, but I guess I am just boring people.

So, I will try one more time to explain this to what I am now calling the (WORRIERS FOR OBAMA )who don't understand how the polls work. I'm going to explain this very elementary. I'm going to use pictures to illustrate so you will understand this. Okay ? When you see a poll that says (Likely Voters) it means they are only giving you the results of certain types of voters. Not all types of voters.

Since most of the polling results we are seeing are for (Likely Voters) I want you to know what that means. It is a group of people that Pollstes believe are the most trusted to show up at the polls on Election Day. It's made up of people who are considered to be the types of people who always vote. So, pollsters always want to know what's on their minds. One problem. Their template is outdated and that means the polls are no longer reflective of the (Likely Voters) because they leave key voting blocks either out or underrepresented.

Click On Extended So You Will See.

david brooks, on the changed landscape of the democratic party, from today's ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29brooks.html?th&emc=th

keeping in mind that a rose does not make a summer (even though it may very well be a noble beginning)  and my observations regarding who might vote for whom fit into this same category as well, but I can't help but wonder if this not not also true for all the "official" polls and predictions as well.

We all know the demographics and profiles for our candidates: 
Hillary, we are told has her largest supporters among older females, and Hispanics and working class

Obama we are told has his largest supporter among blacks, and the young and college graduates.

_______________________________

In regard to Hillary, I seem to recall that in California that she garnered a larger numbrer of young females than Obama (I could be wrong but that is my memory.) Wait a minute!  What about the voter profiles?  :)

Just a few moments ago I was watching the beginng of the gathering for the Maine Caucus.  A commentator asked one of the people, Amanda Perez who she was voting for.  Amanda said that she is a working mother, a child of immigrants and she is voting for Obama.  (Didn't anyone tell her that shs is supposed to be voting for Hillary?)

Then the commentator asked another woman who she was voting for.  This woman appeared to fit the profile of the "older woman" and true to the demographics and voter profiles, she was voting for Hillary.  Well chalk a correct answer up for the pollsters--a voter who fits their proiles.

I on the other hand am Hillary's peer in terms of age, slightly younger, but close enough.  And for me I am voting for Obama.

It's all a bit like Christmas.  We won't know for certain until the last gift has been opened from under the tree.

I just hope that those of us who don't get what we want will be gracious enough to accept that which we do receive.

DEMOCRATS NO MATTER WHAT.

Also go here to see what you can to make certain that all 33 Senate seats have Democratic butts sitting in them in January 2009.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2008/senate/

I don't need to add anything. The facts speak for themselves.

SOURCE LINK

Some facts about last night's victory in Iowa

by Sam Graham-Felsen

Friday, January 04, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Last night, Barack Obama made history in Iowa with a dramatic and decisive victory. He won by bringing an unprecedented number of voters into the process, including thousands of Republicans and Independents who registered as Democrats in order to support Obama.

The entrance polls show just how dominating Obama’s win was and dispel some myths about his candidacy:

Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%

Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%

Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)

As many voters age 17-29 as voters 65 and older participated last night -- in previous years senior participation has been 5-times greater than younger voters.

Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)

Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue

Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)

Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue Won across the ideological spectrum – winning among liberals, moderates and conservatives

Won among high income and lower income voters among voters with household income below $50,000 (34%-32%-19%) and among those over $50,000 (41%-19%-28%)

Also won among the 82% of voters who said Pakistan was “very or somewhat important”

( ALL DEMOGRAHICS: OBAMA WON ! ) 

While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the "red states" are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in "blue" states and 38 percent are in "red" states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.