Simply put, you are wrong.

Money is still the best indicator of future performance as an aggregate data set. It is not one hundred percent accurate, but it is a pretty good indicator.

sinik wrote:
I dont believe the internal campaigns are more accurate in their polling than the large polling organizations which are not part of the media. For local areas, sure the internal campaigns are likely to be more precise.

A lot more people are going to vote than give money. Money is only an indicator of those that give money to campaigns. Money also effects the outcome but it wasn't much of an indicator in the last few democratic primaries.

trp3 wrote:
I'm simply telling you why polls are worthless.

This fact alone completely alters the demographic of who is participating in these polls.

Landlines are called also, and many young adults have cell phones only.

ianmac47 wrote:
Media polls are mostly irrelevant. The only polls with enough accuracy to make a difference are the internal campaign polls that the public never sees.

The better indicator anyway, is money raised and cash on hand, both in Obama's favor.

Pollsters conduct plenty of telephone interviews, but don't hold your breath. For a typical AP-Ipsos poll, about 1,000 adults are interviewed.

trp3 wrote:
Quote:

If you dont pay attention to polls, I am not sure how you can know what 'most people' in any particular group are thinking.

Taken from The Associated Press, the last two sentences being of highest importance:

"Q: How can I believe polls when I never get called?

A: Pollsters conduct plenty of telephone interviews, but don't hold your breath. For a typical AP-Ipsos poll, about 1,000 adults are interviewed. The Census Bureau says there are about 228 million adults in the U.S., so the odds of getting one of those calls are one in 228,000. That's about twice as likely as the one in 500,000 odds the National Safety Council says a person has of dying by accidentally falling from a building in a year. Also, remember political polls are not predictions of who will be elected. They are snapshots of sentiment in a long campaign."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2 ... jKzR8x7N96phLg7QD92817400

with that said, consider how polling is actually done. you know as well as I do that presidents are elected when they win the right states, meaning those states with the largest number of electoral votes. is this factored into polling results? are they making more phone calls to California, NJ, Florida, Ohio, etc.?

our voting system itself is corrupt, meaning a poll to predict the results of a corrupt voting system is senseless.

If you dont pay attention to polls, I am not sure how you can know what 'most people' in any particular group are thinking.

sinik wrote:
Are they? Obama is still below 50% in all polls despite his visit to EAME. McCain is even ahead in some polls

trp3 wrote:
let's face it......most people are really supporting Obama

So what exactly is your point? Yes, i agree, the $9.4 trillion in federal debt is a huge problem that NO ONE talks about - but you can make that point without mangling everything else...no?

ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, convinced the state faces its worst fiscal crisis since the mid-1970s, will deliver the grim news in an unprecedented special address to New Yorkers as soon as tomorrow night, The Post has learned.

The governor's address - which his aides hope will be televised by public and cable news stations - will say that plunging state revenues will force painful cuts in state services, necessitate a reduction in the state work force, possibly through layoffs, and require other difficult economic measures, source said.

Paterson is also expected to announce that he's ordered state agencies to slash spending beyond the relatively modest 3.3 percent cuts he ordered in late spring.

City 'Kitty' Bound for Crisis Too

Fall Fashions Show Depression-Era Chic

He may also call a special session of the Legislature to propose reducing some of the record-high levels of spending that were approved as part of the state's new budget in April.

"The situation is worse than anyone realizes," said a source close to Paterson.

"The governor has said he's tired of the state going from deficit to deficit, spending like it has a credit card that never has to be paid, and that he's prepared to take action," the source said.

Paterson in recent days has huddled with budget planning officials from the administrations of former Govs. Mario Cuomo and Hugh Carey "to get their ideas on how to manage a fiscal crisis," the source said.

To make his concern even clearer, Paterson will hold a private meeting today with Columbia University's Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the former head of the World Bank, who has called the current worldwide financial crisis the worst since the Great Depression.

"The governor has been impressed with Stiglitz's work, and there have been staff discussions leading to the meeting Monday," said an administration source.

Paterson warned last week that Wall Street bonuses - a major source of state tax revenue - will likely drop by 20 percent or more this year.

A day later the state Financial Control Board said New York City's projected two-year deficit had grown by a whopping $4 billion because of Wall Street losses and the economy's overall decline.

The governor's own budget experts are slated to present an updated financial plan with sharply lower projected revenues on Wednesday.

Spendthrift New York City almost went bankrupt in 1975-76 and the state defaulted on some of its bonds at the same time in the worst fiscal crisis to face New York since the Great Depression.

While state and city leaders pledged to assure the prudence of future fiscal practices, that pledge was largely abandoned during the past 20 years as officials ran up state spending at two or three times the inflation rate because of sharp increases in education and health-care spending.