Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gore has nearly won the Democratic primary according to a new Gallup Poll!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:39 PM
Original message
Gore has nearly won the Democratic primary according to a new Gallup Poll!
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 04:04 PM by IndyOp
"...among Democrats.... 48 percent said they would like him to run and 43 percent said they would not."

He only needs to grab 3% of all other primary voters and he has won!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Yes, I know that "would like him to run" is not a perfect indicator of whether they will vote for him. It may be that fewer than 48% would say, at this time, that they would vote for him if he ran, then again maybe more would say that they would vote for him if he were running.

This post is intended to help UNspin the AP story posted in Latest Breaking News here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3030611


On edit: Clarification about the 3% --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zandor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Nobel did him no good
Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Perhaps that's because he's been talked about as the de facto winner for months
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frosty1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Not true
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 03:49 PM by Avabea
Draft Gore' 2008 petition has received 70,000 new signatures since Nobel prize win

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsfQQ10jYLzMDHCfThqcC50k_AOw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. really?
i guess we should stop having awards and elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
63. Why do you hate Democrats?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
76. Sour grapes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fuzzy math...just 3% how you figure????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Well, 48% + 3% = 51% - which would win an election. The poll isn't
broken down into state-by-state numbers...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNDemNY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. You must take into account
that MANY of the "48%" are the same folks already counted among other Candidates polling #s
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. I admitted in the OP that I was making an inferential leap -- that
if they want him to run it is because they would vote for him if he ran. If that is true then his 48% is drawn from the other candidates and from undecideds. He needs to increase that amount of 3% of all other voters in the Democratic primary.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear - its been a plenty long day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
48. You presume he is in a 2-person race - add in a couple more candidates and he's got it already.
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 05:08 PM by ThomWV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Thank You ThomWV -- that is what I was thinking, but I decided to be
cautious in the way that I described the poll results.

I like your style, though -> ;-)

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Love the toon in your sig!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I don't. If it wasn't penned by a rabid right-winger, I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Wow, I never imagined I'd I meet the great AHNOLD online! The cartoon
is by Mr. Fish. He is not a right-winger in the slightest.

Mr. Fish hates Bushco and maintains a consistent attitude toward others who are hawkish. He hates war and sees how it brutalizes soldiers and citizens.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Jeezus, what a fucking FREEPER that guy is!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Hey, Arnie. It was penned by Mr. Fish, cartoonist for Harper's
It's, like, right on the gif. Is Google really that hard to use?


And, btw, you may not know this, but right-wingers don't usually go after candidates for being pro-war. It's kind of one of their things.

Next time, you may want to try the faux-misogyny angle. It sometimes gains a bit more traction if you're trying to avoid dealing with actual issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I supposed the caption were a later addition. It's a computer font, rather that hand letter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. The challenge with reducing the size of Mr. Fish's work is that the print
becomes too tiny to read. Here is the original:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
52. Your edit actually makes it funnier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. A right winger would care that this war has killed
hundreds of thousands of brown people??? They would call that a plus, but she's a woman- can't have a woman exec, according to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
72. Don't you know?
Anyone who criticizes Hillary Inc. must be a right-winger. Really, get with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Oh, Dur!
What was I thinking??? I believed that the left had a say for a moment- thinks for getting me back in the doublespeak :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
43. Me Too!
Excellent!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. He just needs to pick Edwards or Kucinich as a running mate, over 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. He may not do that and pick Obama like he picked Joe
Lieberman in 2000 as a gesture of non-partisanship within the Democratic Party. I say to Al, be the liberal that you are and pick one of the lefties to be your running partner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Should Al Gore win the nomination,
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 03:54 PM by Uncle Joe
I believe he will have far more political leeway in choosing his running mate. He will not need to be concerned about counterbalancing someone else's behavior.

Edit for P.S. My post is no reflection on any potential candidate for V.P. just a statement of fact regarding the political reality of 2008 versus 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Gore / Boxer 2008!

Gore / Boxer 2008!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
54. I like Gore / Dean 2008 but Gore / Boxer 2008 will do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sdfernando Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #54
75. I like Gore / Clark 2008 but will take Gore / ????, so long
as Gore is out front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Gore/Obama would be fine with me. He could appoint John Edwards to
be Secretary of Labor and appoint Dennis Kucinich Secretary of Peace - Cabinet level head of Department of Peace.

Would that work? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. Are you joking? Obama is to the left of Edwards
Of course, that's if you bother to look at their records instead of just their latest soundbyte. That's obviously where our difference in opinion lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. No he isn't on the issues most important to me,
health care and poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justyce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
73. Exactly.
I also like his stance on free trade, labor, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hmmm....if it's a Gallup poll, the figure might be even higher
considering that Gallup seems to do most of it's polling in more conservative demographies. For instance, I have never been polled by Gallup, but I live on the left coast. A friend of mine in N. Dakota get's polled with regularity by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Excuse me?
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 04:05 PM by SDuderstadt
How in the world can you draw the conclusion that Gallup "seems to do most of it's polling in more conservative demographies" based upon the fact that you live on the east coast and have never been polled by them and your friend in N. Dakota has? Do you know anything about statistical sampling or weighting? Do you understand how polling works and how pollsters strive for representativeness of their sample? Do you understand what the "margin or error" is and how it's calculated? How in the world would a pollster attract clients if they can't assure a reasonable degree of accuracy? Please inform yourself on the subject before you make generalizations like this. By the way, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most liberal (as am I) areas in the country and I am a Gallup household. Using your logic (?), seems Gallup only polls liberals. See my point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. So I live south of you and I have been polled by just about everyone
but Gallup. However, it's true I'm not a Gallup insider to know exactly what they do. It's just when you compare their polls to others, they seem to be more pro-conservative in their stats, which leads me to believe that they do the majority of their polling in Middle America. Of course I can't prove it but the figures speak of some such weighting of polls going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Again, the question is...
Why would ANY polling organization strive for anything BUT accuracy? Why would any client hire someone who could not deliver a reasonable degree of accuracy? Mind you, I am aware of things like push polling, but that isn't a real poll to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. If you are trying to pull me into an argument about something
that had nothing to do about my post, forget about it. All I said basically that Gallup weighs more conservative than the rest of the polls so his figures are probably even higher. It may be that Gallup likes to weigh in more conservatively. It may be what they consider erring on the side of conservative a more accurate way of doing things. Let's face it no poll would be even 99% accurate unless they polled every voter in the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Okay
Then please provide some proof of your claim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Please I'd have to go google the latest on the other polls and
honestly, I have real work to do that is pressing on me. If you have that much time on your hands and are really interested, you can google them and compare them yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Ummm, my point is that...
You apparently don't understand how statistical sampling and polling actually works and I am merely pleading with you to educate yourself before you generalize and mislead other people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Well, then you post how it's done and educate all of us or
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 04:57 PM by Cleita
are you just blowing steam yourself? I really get fed up with you guys who have to hijack a thread that I put a throwaway comment on to keep a worthwhile thread up on top and the debate going. If this is a problem with you, start a thread on it and keep the discourse there, not on this thread. btw, I'll bet that you can't prove I'm wrong either. If you can put up your facts instead of trying to get me into a useless argument, please do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #42
64. Apparently.....
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 07:01 AM by SDuderstadt
You haven't studied Logic either. YOU made the claim. YOU have the burden of proof. I merely asked you for proof of your claim, which you refuse to provide. In Logic, this is called, among other things, "shifting the burden of proof". Your headline was "Hmmm....if it's a Gallup poll, the figure might be even higher". You went on to cite the most anecdotal of "evidence", that is, "for instance, I have never been polled by Gallup, but I live on the left coast. A friend of mine in N. Dakota get's polled with regularity by them". How you start with your own experience (out of some 300 million people in the US), then compare it to your friend's experience (who DOES happen to be one of thousands actually polled by Gallup) and, upon that basis, draw the conclusion that Gallup's polling is "conservative", is a hoot. It would be like me seeing that my next-door neighbor drives a Hyundai, then concluding that Hyundai is the most popular car in America.

The burden of proof rests with the maker of the original claim, that is, "that Gallup seems to do most of it's polling in more conservative demographies". If you have any evidence that Gallup polls mostly in "more conservative demographies", please present it. As I already stated, I am a Gallup household from one of the most liberal areas of the country. So, therefore, we have a sample size of three (you, me and your friend), two of whom HAVE been polled by Gallup, one of whom lives in a "conservative area" and the other who does not. Again, using your "Logic", that would seem to prove that Gallup is balanced.

I don't have to disprove your claim. YOU made the claim. The burden of proof rests with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. Actually, I got an "A" in logic.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people you know nothing about. But this is a ridiculous argument you are leading me into that has no logical connection to the original OP. So go annoy someone else. I will no longer respond to your posts. They are a waste of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. How does someone who "got an A in Logic"...
then make such illogical posts? If you truly did get an A in Logic, you would understand the need for proof of claims rather than continue to dodge such requests. If you studied Logic at all, you would not remotely believe it is your challenger's burden to diprove your claim. Now you are being dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #42
67. Wanna be educated?
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 07:57 AM by SDuderstadt
How are polls conducted?
by Frank Newport, Lydia Saad, David Moore
from Where America Stands, 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Public opinion polls would have less value in a democracy if the public -- the very people whose views are represented by the polls -- didn't have confidence in the results. This confidence does not come easily. The process of polling is often mysterious, particularly to those who don't see how the views of 1,000 people can represent those of hundreds of millions. Many Americans contact The Gallup Organization each year 1. to ask how our results can differ so much from their own personal impressions of what people think, 2. to learn how we go about selecting people for inclusion in our polls, and 3. to find out why they have never been interviewed.

The public's questions indicate a healthy dose of skepticism about polling. Their questions, however, are usually accompanied by a strong and sincere desire to find out what's going on under Gallup's hood. It turns out that the callers who reach Gallup's switchboard may be just the tip of the iceberg. Survey researchers have actually conducted public opinion polls to find out how much
confidence Americans have in polls -- and have discovered an interesting problem. People generally believe the results of polls, but they do not believe in the scientific principles on which polls are based. In a recent Gallup "poll on polls," respondents said that polls generally do a good job of forecasting elections and are accurate when measuring public opinion on other issues. Yet when asked about the scientific sampling foundation on which all polls are based, Americans were skeptical. Most said that a survey of 1,500-2,000 respondents -- a larger than average sample size for national polls -- cannot represent the views of all Americans.

In addition to these questions about sampling validity, the public often asks questions about the questions themselves -- that is, who decides what questions to ask the public, and how those looking at poll results can be sure that the answers reflect the public's true opinion about the issues at hand.

The Sampling Issue

Probability sampling is the fundamental basis for all survey research. The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly. The fundamental goal of a survey is to come up with the same results that would have been obtained had every single member of a population been interviewed. For national Gallup polls, in other words, the objective is to present the opinions of a sample of people that are exactly the same opinions that would have been obtained had it been possible to interview all adult Americans in the country.

The key to reaching this goal is a fundamental principle called equal probability of selection, which states that if every member of a population has an equal probability of being selected in a sample, then that sample will be representative of the population. It's that straightforward. Thus, it is Gallup's goal in selecting samples to allow every adult American an equal chance of falling into the sample. How that is done, of course, is the key to the success or failure of the process.

Selecting a Random Sample

The first one thousand people streaming out of a Yankees game in the Bronx clearly aren't representative of all Americans. Now consider a group compiled by selecting 1,000 people coming out of a Major League Baseball game in every state in the continental United States -- 48,000 people! We now have a much larger group -- but we are still no closer to representing the views of all Americans than we were in the Bronx. We have a lot of baseball fans, but, depending on the circumstances, these 48,000 people may not even be a good representative sample of all baseball fans in the country -- much less all Americans, baseball fans or not. When setting out to conduct a national opinion poll, the first thing Gallup does is select a place where all or most Americans are equally likely to be found. That wouldn't be a shopping mall, or a grocery store, an office building, a hotel, or a baseball game. The place nearly all adult Americans are most likely to be found is in their home. So, reaching people at home is the starting place for almost all national surveys. By necessity, the earliest polls were conducted in-person, with Gallup interviewers fanning out across the country, knocking on Americans' doors. This was the standard method of interviewing for nearly fifty years, from about 1935 to the mid-1980s, and it was a demonstrably reliable method. Gallup polls across the twelve presidential elections held between 1936 and 1984 were highly accurate, with the average error in Gallup's final estimate of the election being less than 3 percentage points.

By 1986, a sufficient proportion of American households had at least one telephone to make telephone interviewing a viable and substantially less expensive alternative to the in-person method. And by the end of the 1980s, the vast majority of Gallup's national surveys were being conducted by telephone. Today, approximately 95% of all households have a telephone and every survey reported in this book is based on interviews conducted by telephone. Gallup proceeds with several steps in putting together its poll with the objective of letting every American household, and every American adult have an equal chance of falling into the sample.

• First, we clearly identify and describe the population that a given poll is attempting to represent. If we were doing a poll about baseball fans on behalf of the sports page of a major newspaper, the target population might simply be all Americans aged 18 and older who say they are fans of the sport of baseball. If the poll were being conducted on behalf of Major League Baseball, however, the target audience required by the client might more specific, such as people aged twelve and older who watch at least five hours worth of Major League Baseball games on television, or in-person, each week. In the case of Gallup polls that track the election and the major political, social and economic questions of the day, the target audience is generally referred to as "national adults." Strictly speaking the target audience is all adults, aged 18 and over, living in telephone households within the continental United States. In effect, it is the civilian, non-institutionalized population. College students living on campus, armed forces personnel living on military bases, prisoners, hospital patients and others living in group institutions are not represented in Gallup's "sampling frame." Clearly these exclusions represent some diminishment in the
coverage of the population, but because of the practical difficulties involved in attempting to reach the institutionalized population, it is a compromise Gallup usually needs to make.

• Next, we choose or design a method that will enable us to sample our target population randomly. In the case of The Gallup Poll, we start with a list of all household telephone numbers in the continental United States. This complicated process really starts with a computerized list of all telephone exchanges in America, along with estimates of the number of residential households those exchanges have attached to them. The computer, using a procedure called random digit dialing (RDD), actually creates phone numbers from those exchanges, then generates telephone samples from those. In essence, this procedure creates a list of all possible household phone numbers in America and then selects a subset of numbers from that list for Gallup to call. It's important to go through this complicated procedure because estimates are that about 30% of American residential phones are unlisted. Although it would be a lot simpler if we used phone books to obtain all listed phone numbers in America and sampled from them (much as you would if you simply took every 38th number from your local phone book), we would miss out on unlisted phone numbers, and introduce a possible bias into the sample.

The Number of Interviews or Sample Size Required

One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal probability of falling into the sample. The current U.S. adult population in the continental United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, which is designed to represent this general population, is 1,000 national adults. The actual number of people that need to be interviewed for a given sample is to some degree less important than the soundness of the fundamental equal probability of selection principle. In other words -- although this is something many people find hard to believe -- if respondents are not selected randomly, we could have a poll with a million people and still be significantly less likely to represent the views of all Americans than a much smaller sample of just 1,000 people -- if that sample is selected randomly.

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy that comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense -- and sampling theory -- tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20. Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains that come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples. If Gallup were to -- quite expensively -- use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost. Statisticians over the years have developed quite specific ways of measuring the accuracy of samples -- so long as the fundamental principle of equal probability of selection is adhered to when the sample is drawn. For example, with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton's approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that. To be more specific, the laws of probability say that if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, asking people in each survey to rate the job Bill Clinton is doing as president, in 95 out of those 100 polls, we would find his rating to be between 47% and 53%. In only five of those surveys would we expect his rating to be higher or lower than that due to chance error. As discussed above, if we increase the sample size to 2,000 rather than 1,000 for a Gallup poll, we would find that the results would be accurate within plus or minus 2% of the underlying population value, a gain of 1% in terms of accuracy, but with a 100% increase in the cost of conducting the survey. These are the cost value decisions that Gallup and other survey organizations make when they decide on sample sizes for their surveys.

The Interview Itself

Once the computer has selected a phone number for inclusion into a sample, Gallup goes to extensive lengths to try to make contact with an adult American living in that household. In many instances, there is no answer or the number is busy on the first call. Instead of forgetting that number and going on to the next, Gallup typically stores the number in the computer where it comes back up to be recalled a few hours later, and then to be recalled again on subsequent nights of the survey period. This procedure corrects for a possible bias that could occur in if we included interviews only with people who answered the phone the first time we called their number. For example, people who are less likely to be at home, such as young single adults, or people who spend a lot of time on the phone, would have a lower probability of falling into the sample than an adult American who was always at home and rarely talked on his or her phone. The call-back procedure corrects for this possible bias. Once the household has been reached, Gallup attempts to assure that an individual within that household is selected randomly -- for those households that include more than one adult. There are several different procedures that Gallup has used through the years for this within household selection process. Gallup sometimes uses a shorthand method of asking for the adult with the latest birthday. In other surveys, Gallup asks the individual who answers the phone to list all adults in the home based on their age and gender, and Gallup selects randomly one of those adults to be interviewed. If the randomly selected adult is not home, Gallup would tell the person on the phone that they would need to call back and try to reach that individual at a later point in time. These procedures, while expensive and while not always possible in polls that are conducted in very short time periods, help to ensure that every adult American has an equal probability of falling into the sample.

The Questions

The technical aspects of data collection are critically important, and if done poorly, can undermine the reliability of even a perfectly worded question. However, when it comes to modern-day attitude surveys conducted by most of the major national polling organizations, question wording is probably the greatest source of bias and error in the data, followed by question order. Writing a clear, unbiased question takes great care and discipline, as well as extensive knowledge about public opinion. Even such a seemingly simple thing as asking Americans whom they are going to vote for in a forthcoming election can be dependent on how the question is framed. For example, in a presidential race, the survey researcher can include the name of the vice presidential candidates along with the presidential candidate, or can just mention the presidential candidates' names. One can remind respondents of the party affiliation of each candidate when the question is read, or can mention the names of the candidates without any indication of their party. Gallup's rule in this situation is to ask the question in a way that mimics the voting experience as much as possible. We read the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, and mention the name of the party line on which they are running. All of this is information the voter would normally see when reading the ballot in the voting booth. Questions about policy issues have an even greater range of wording options. Should we describe programs like food stamps and Section 8 housing grants as "welfare" or as "programs for the poor" when asking whether the public favors or opposes them? Should we identify the Clinton health care bill as health care "reform" or as "an overhaul of the health care system" when asking about congressional approval of the plan? When measuring support for the U.S. military presence in Bosnia should we say the United States is "sending" troops or "contributing" troops to the U.N.-sponsored mission there? Any of these wording choices could have a substantial impact on the levels of support recorded in the poll. For many of the public opinion areas covered in this book, Gallup is in the fortunate position of having a historical track record. Gallup has been conducting public opinion polls on public policy, presidential approval, approval of Congress, and key issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and gun control for many years. This gives Gallup the advantage of continuing a question in exactly the same way that it has been asked historically, which in turn provides a very precise measurement of trends. If the exact wording of a question is held constant from year to year, then substantial changes in how the American public responds to that question usually represent an underlying change in attitude. For new questions that don't have an exact analog in history, Gallup has to be more creative. In many instances, even though the question is not exactly the same, Gallup can follow the format that it has used for previous questions that have seemed to have worked out as objective measures. For instance, when Gallup was formulating the questions that it asked the public about the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, we were able to go back to questions that were asked during the Vietnam War and borrow their basic construction. Similarly, even though the issues and personalities change on the national political scene, we can use the same formats that have been utilized for previous presidents and political leaders to measure support for current leaders. One of the oldest question wordings which Gallup has in its inventory is presidential job approval. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, Gallup has been asking "Do you approve or disapprove of the job (blank) is doing as president?" That wording has stayed constant over the years, and provides a very reliable trend line for how Americans are reacting to their presidents.

For brand new question areas, Gallup will often test several different wordings. Additionally, it is not uncommon for Gallup to ask several different questions about a content area of interest. Then in the analysis phase of a given survey, Gallup analysts can make note of the way Americans respond to different question wordings, presenting a more complete picture of the population's underlying attitudes. Through the years, Gallup has often used a split sample technique to measure the impact of different question wordings. A randomly selected half of a given survey is administered one wording of a question, while the other half is administered the other wording. This allows Gallup to compare the impact of differences in wordings of questions, and often to report out the results of both wordings, allowing those who are looking at the results of the poll to see the impact of nuances in ways of addressing key issues.

Conducting the Interview

Most Gallup interviews are conducted by telephone from Gallup's regional interviewing centers around the country. Trained interviewers use computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology, which brings the survey questions up on a computer monitor and allows questionnaires to be tailored to the specific responses given by the individual being interviewed. (If you answer, "yes, I like pizza," the computer might be programmed to read, "What is your favorite topping?" as the next question.) The interviews are tabulated continuously and automatically by the computers. For a very short interview, such as Gallup conducted after the presidential debates in October 1996, the
results can be made available immediately upon completion of the last interview. In most polls, once interviewing has been completed, the data are carefully checked and weighted before analysis begins. The weighting process is a statistical procedure by which the sample is checked against known population parameters to correct for any possible sampling biases on the basis of demographic variables such as age, gender, race, education, or region of country. Once the data have been weighted, the results are tabulated by computer programs that not only show how the total sample responded to each question, but also break out the sample by relevant variables. In Gallup's presidential polling in 1996, for example, the presidential vote question is looked at by political party, age, gender, race, region of the country, religious affiliation and other variables.

Interpreting the Results

There are several standard caveats to observe when interpreting poll results. Primary among these are issues discussed in this chapter: question wording, question order, the sample population, the sample size, the random selection technique used in creating the sampling frame, the execution of the sample (including the number calls backs and length of the field period) and the method of interviewing (in person vs. telephone vs. mail). Anyone using the Gallup Poll can do so with assurance that the data were obtained with extremely careful and reliable sampling and interviewing methods. Gallup's intent is always to be fair and objective when writing questions and constructing questionnaires. The original mission of polling was to amplify the voice of the public, not distort it, and we continue to be inspired by that mission. With those assurances in mind, the outside observer or researcher should dive into poll data with a critical mind. Interpretation of survey research results is most importantly dependent on context. What the American public may say about an issue is most valuable when it can be compared to other current questions or to questions asked across time. Where trend data exist, one should also look at changes over time and determine whether these changes are significant and important. Let's say, for example, that Bill Clinton has a job approval rating of 48%. Is this a good rating or a poor rating? The best way to tell is to look at history for context: compare it to Clinton's ratings throughout the rest of his presidency, then compare it to approval ratings for previous presidents. Did previous presidents with this rating at the equivalent point in time tend to get re-elected or not? Then it can be compared to approval ratings of Congress, of the Republican and Democratic congressional leaders. Gallup generally provides written analysis of our own polling data. But we also provide ample opportunity for the press, other pollsters, students, professors and the general public to draw their own conclusions about what the data mean. The results to all Gallup surveys are in the "public domain" - once they have been publicly released by us, anyone who chooses may pick up the information and write about it themselves. The survey results are regularly published in the major media, in the Gallup Poll Monthly, and on several electronic information services such as Nexus, the Roper Center and the Internet. We also make the raw data available to researchers who want to perform more complex statistical analysis. In addition to the exact question wordings and current results, Gallup reports trend results to all questions that have been asked previously so that even the casual observer can review the current results in context with public opinion in the past. The key concept to bear in mind when analyzing poll data is that public opinion on a given topic cannot be understood by using only a single poll question asked a single time. It is necessary to measure opinion along several different dimensions, to review attitudes based on a variety of different wordings, to verify findings on the basis of multiple askings, and to pay attention to changes in opinion over time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. Gallup uses a representative random national sample for studies like this,
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 04:55 PM by pnwmom
just like all the major polling companies. Call them up and ask them how they design their studies if you're curious. The only reason they'd pick on North Dakota is if someone was paying them to do statewide studies of North Dakota. But those results wouldn't go into their national studies.

The people at Gallup have also written a book that talks about how they, and other responsible polling companies, conduct their studies.

http://www.galluppoll.com/help/faq.aspx?ID=249
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. Thanks, but I still think they lean conservative. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. If Al Enters Race And It's Even Close, I'll Really Be Depressed
I'm sorry, but it should be NO CONTEST between Al and Hillary. I would be deeply disappointed in the Democratic party, were it not to stand behind Al Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Check out this poll! Gore 54% - Hillary 9.6%
When I last checked...

Vote to see results and the results are stunning! Al gets more votes then all the other candidates combined!!!

here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21264312

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Hey! That was fun! Have you posted this poll to ask people to DU it? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Other DUers posted it over the weekend...
I just hope Al see's it! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Thanks for posting that poll!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JMDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
62. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
29. Gore?Lieberman -> what the heck was he thinking back then and what has changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. He's burned his bridges with the DLC and the Clintons, that's what
This time out, he'd be running TOTALLY as his own man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. I hope he dumped Donna Brazille, his last campaign manager,
as well. She didn't help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Nothing has changed, the past seven years are just a figment of everyone's imagination. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
77. Easy:
Gore needed Florida to win, and Florida has the largest Jewish vote outside New York. And It worked.

Also, due to Clinton's indecretions some voters were leery, so Lieberman was brought in to shore up the morally ridged. that worked also, as seen in the popular vote totals.

Gore was thinking he wanted to win the Presidency. And his thinking in choosing Lieberman was sound as a way to help accomplish that goal.

Do you imagine that the VP slot is chosen based on friendship and on identical philosophies? Or do you suppose that the slot is usually filled based on political calculas?

I'd choose the latter as my answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
30. you know just because 48% would like him to run doesn't mean they all will vote for him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #30
49. I admitted that in the OP... The number who might say
that they would vote for Gore if he were running might be higher or lower than the 48%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
34. btw, the article this poll is based on isn't overly enthusiastic re: the results
It points out that only 41% of all Americans want Gore to run and that 54% are opposed to Gore running, and that "even Democrats seem tepid to the idea with only 48% wanting him to run while 43% are opposed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. I know the article isn't overly enthusiastic, that is exactly why I posted
an "unspun" version. I don't know what, if any, axe the author has to grind re: a possible Gore run - but I think the AP article is fraught with "spin" -- the use of the word "tepid" is, for example, an example of biased language. If they had asked the same question about Barbara Boxer the results would've been much different - far fewer would encourage a run, but the AP is describing a potential Gore run as something that Americans are hostile towards and the data does not support that contention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhythm and Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
47. "Want him to run" is not at all "will vote for him over everyone else"
He's polling in third place (around 14-15%) if you actually ask that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. It is reasonable to argue that Gore is running in 3rd place because people
are making their selections strategically. I may really want Kucinich to win, but if polled I say Edwards or Obama because I want SOMEONE to knock Hilary down - because it is way, way too early to call anyone inevitable and because she is the worst of the pack in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sufficient Voice Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
55. I hope this convinces him to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
56. K&R!
The glass IS half full!

Run, Al, Run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raging moderate Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Mr. Fish's dissing of the Clinton Administration in an effort to discredit Hillary
Does anybody have a link to the actual facts about the Sudan and the Kosovo/Serbia incidents? I seem to remember them differently than Mr. Fish. Although he seemed to have much better motivation than his son in later years, I think that it was Bush Sr. who got us INTO Sudan, and Clinton got us out. And wasn't it the Serbians who committed atrocities, while the US military engaged in a mostly restrained and truly international peacekeeping effort? Mrs. Clinton could hardly be blamed for Bill's adulterous Monica incident, of which she herself was the chief victim. I seem to remember the bitter feminist who suggested, "Next thing you know, when a man commits murder, they'll hang his wife for it." I am not particularly a Hillary fan, but this particular strip does seem to be somewhat disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raging moderate Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. My internet incompetence
Dang. I hit the wrong button again.
I just wanted to add that this sort of insidious effort to impute guilt by association has been the hallmark of neocon attacks on Hillary Clinton, AND on Al Gore, AND on all Democrats. Anything said or done by ANY Democrat (or Communist, for that matter) is automatically assumed to apply equally to all Democrats. Whereas no such connections are ever allowed between the members of the Bush family. Today one of my coworkers actually told me she voted for Bush both times because Democrats always spend much more money on everything, and they always give too many handouts to people, so that this country has become too dependent on handouts instead of work. Then she left before I could tell her the latest findings that our workers work harder than any others in the civilized world. Or remind her that Clinton and Gore presided over a massive welfare overhaul. Or that Bush has been the recipient of massive hadnouts all his life. Or that Al Gore is working to get ALL of us to assume our rightful responsibilities in the world, especially concerning global warming. Hillary is certainly head and shoulders above anybody running on the Republican side. If she wins the nomination, I will vote for her. But if Al Gore declares his nomination, I will work every evening after work (NoDoze addiction and all) and give every spare dime I have to put him back in the White House where he belongs, before it's too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
60. Sorry, false assertion.
"48 percent said they would like him to run"

However, they do not necessarily say they would vote for him. HUGE f'n difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
61. #1, your sig is ignorant. #2, learn to read....the poll question is not "who would you vote for".
I know you posted a qualifier after you posted "He only needs to grab 3% of all other primary voters and he has won!" and your woohoo emoticons, but maybe you shouldn't have posted such absolute bullshit in the first place?

Not to mention the poll was not of "primary voters".

This kind of thing, this type of dishonesty, is what feeds frustration and quarrel over the issue of Gore running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #61
65. So then why would they want him to run?
And you're calling the OP ignorant? Maybe it's just that you're scared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. If the earlier poster isn't saying it, I am.
The OP is ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #65
70. Yes, the OP is ignorant
Simply wanting someone to run has absolutley no relation to wanting someone to win. Polls showing how many people support gore have him polling at around 12%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #61
79. #1. My sig is from Mr. Fish the Harper's (liberal) magazine cartoonist and
Edited on Wed Oct-17-07 03:15 PM by IndyOp
Here are more Mr. Fish cartoons that taken on Colin Powell, Bush, etcetera...

I put the cartoon in my sig line not because I hate Hillary, but because Hillary's behavior is emblematic of how U.S. presidents since World War II have acted on the world stage. 250 military and CIA interventions since WWII. 737 military bases in 130 countries. Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, reacted in horror to George W. Bush's written public policy statement that the U.S. would use military force when necessary to maintain control of markets and resources -- she reacted in horror, not because using military force as an imperial power seems wrong to her, but because all presidents in the past have had a similar policy statement, but have had the good taste to "keep it in their back pocket." I am sick of empire and Hillary's behavior matches that of so many in the U.S. power structure who keep the empire going.

#2. I did read. I did qualify my statements -- it could be that some of the 48% who would like him to run just want him to run because he would bring up important issues. Then again, it may be that more than 48% would vote for him if he were running, but some are afraid that if he runs there will be chaos in the party and that could hurt the Democratic Party. If he were to throw his hat in the ring the percentage of people who say they would vote for him could be well above 48%. We can't know whether the number would be higher or lower because people answer survey questions like this strategically. For example, if asked who I would vote for I am likely to say Edwards or Obama, because Kucinich doesn't seem to have a chance. I really want to vote for Kucinich, but I answer the survey question to bolster the score of the next best candidates.

Another thought: If 48% want him to run and the race is a 3- or 4-way race between Gore, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton then Gore doesn't have to get 48% of the votes to win - If Edwards captured 10% and Obama and Clinton captured 25% then Gore could win with 40% of the votes cast.

I don't think the OP is bullshit, but I am willing to admit it is a pretty dramatic inferential leap. I did not expect this post to get 33 recs. It is an observation from one perspective on one day.

I've always enjoyed your posts Harper_is_Bush...

:no "hi" emoticon inserted here because you don't seem to like them:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #61
81. Harper_is_Bush - In an honest attempt to respond to your constructive
criticism, I've posted another thread with additional information...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2070511
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
71. He's not running. He's not running. He's not running. He's not running. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
78. This is misleading
the actual poll of candidates has Hillary Clinton still leading with 44% followed by Obama with 19% followed by Gore with 14% and Edwards at 10%

The full poll can be read at:
www.galluppoll.com

Since the Nobel prize Gore's support has grown from 10% to 14% but Hillary at the same time went from 43% to 44%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
80. Gore the topic today on a NYTimes blog -- but it was booted off page 1 quickly
Today there's a Gore topic blog at the NY Times, but it only appeared on the front page for about 20 minutes. I had to post the message 4 times before it would take. If you decide to post there be sure to paste your message into a separate file on your computer in case the same thing happens to you.

Suggest you go there an post a comment to drive the numbers up about how much the public wants him to become president. Maybe it will cut through all the BS that the polls are putting out about how Gore is not favored as a candidate. There are many on the NYT blog who want him, but there are also some vicious posts that promote the same lies originated by the MSM.

One blogger mentioned regularly popular the threads are on democraticunderground.com when they stoke hope for a Gore presidency.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/gores-campaign-donations/

I also posted part of this message on another Gore related thread today here on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC