This message was self-deleted by its author

[secondwind]

This message was self-deleted by its author (secondwind) on Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:03 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[fugop]

1. That suggests they lose all credibility

No other poll showed "crushing" numbers pre-debate. Frankly, no other polls have shown "crushing" numbers post-debate either. So that makes zero sense.

[jezebel]

2. HUH??? what numbers taken pre debate would just come out tomorrow? Are we talking a state poll?

Because they just did a national poll early last week.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Makes zero sense, the debate was last Wednesday

Why would they put a poll out tomorrow with week-old numbers?

[Cirque du So-What]

4. OMG Bunny is all over this

[TroyD]

5. Why would there be bad poll numbers for Obama PRE Debate?

Did they even explain why?

[Silent3]

8. Why would they say their are bad numbers and not just show the numbers?

Do they always tease their results before releasing them? This makes no sense.

[secondwind]

6. Latino enthusiasm was 77% in 2008, today it is 52% .things like that. HOWEVER, this

was also before the unemployment numbers came out.

[fugop]

11. Ah...

So maybe topline numbers are fine and they're just drilling down to unreliable subsamples in order to create some bad news.

Yep. Now that makes sense. God our press sucks.

[patrice]

34. +++1 There is a need to explain the whole polling paradigm & how knowledge is affected by

unreliable subsamples.

I'm going to look for some good sources on this topic.

[TroyD]

12. Did they mention Latino Decisions says Obama is polling higher than in 2008?

Did they talk about the historic poll numbers Obama just got from Latino Decisions recently?

[speedoo]

15. Obviously, your characterization of that as "CRUSHING" is something we don't agree with.

In that respect, your OP is very misleading.

[speedoo]

7. I'm watching and I did not hear anything like that.

So I have no idea what the OP is talking about.

[Godless in Seattle]

13. Me Neither

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Me Neither

The only mention of polls was when David Gregory said he couldn't wait to see them.

[progressivebydesign]

19. I'm smelling some wind alright.. but it's not Second wind, it's fecund wind.

I absolutely HATE posts like that OP. People watching the same show aren't hearing the same thing. "crushing" and suddenly his Latino numbers would drop, after going up??? Is this like that Gravis poll that showed the Romney dominating with African American voters? Calling bullshit on the OP.

[Jennicut]

9. They were plus 3 9/26 - 9/30.

Is this pre or post debate you are talking about? Pre debate went down from plus 3? If so, who cares? The poll is irrelevant pre debate. The most accurate polls will be in about 2 to 3 days to see the full effects of the debate.

[TroyD]

10. Why would they release Pre-Debate polls?

Instead of Post-Debate polls?

[BelieveMe3]

16. makes no sense

Because they never reveal poll numbers in that way a day early. NBC wants the big reveal. So the idea that "crushing" was used the day before? That makes no sense!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Where's The Hemlock?

[helpisontheway]

18. I watched MTP this morning

I think Chuck was going over the internals for the last Poll. The one where the spread between likely voters was narrower than the one between registered voters. He said the reason the spread between likely voters was closer because of enthusiasm on the Republican side . That is the only thing I heard.

[progressivebydesign]

20. of course, that's ridiculous, because the Dems have been dominating early voting.

I think the media want's a horse race, desperately. They're grasping. As for the OP... well...

[secondwind]

36. I'm not an alarmist.. I don't even post regularly... it just stunned me, that's all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. That's All There Was

Some people here will never miss an opportunity to soil themselves and try to encourage others to soil themselves. That being said those numbers were disturbing.

If everybody who wants to vote for the president on 11/6 votes for him he will win in a laugher.

[MjolnirTime]

22. So we should all be really scared, right? Give it a break, secondwindbag.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. That Was A Bit Harsh But I Propose A New Forum

Democratic Underground Panic Room.

[mucifer]

27. I am soooo there.

I feel all sorts of panic lately.

[secondwind]

37. gosh, I hardly post here.. I was concerned... and that is that.

[grasswire]

24. who says so??

Give us some more info.

Never heard of numbers being leaked a day in advance.

[grasswire]

25. can we alert on posts that are obviously disinformation? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Yes of course you can. This is a trollish fear uncertainty and doubt post.

[patrice]

35. I don't like messed-with crap like this either & would prefer not to have it here, but . . .

if it is here, it is elsewhere too and at least here it can receive the kind of rational expertise & due diligence that it likely would not get elsewhere and, in the process, everyone will have opportunities to ask questions & get a little more informed on topics like polling.

[liberal N proud]

26. You must have been listening to Chucky Todd.

[graham4anything]

28. How would anyone know those poll numbers today???

If they knew the #s today, they would have been released today.

like d'uh.

and they wouldn't include the 7.8 anyhow.

BTW-you do know who owns the Wall Street Journal don't you???
d'uh- it's Rupert Murdoch.

[WI_DEM]

29. DO YOU MEAN POST-DEBATE? Why the hell do I care for PRE-DEBATE POLL NUMBERS?

[itsrobert]

30. Was that Chuck Todd who said on Friday morning the Unemployment number will not be good?

?

[WI_DEM]

31. Why don't we just wait until tomorrow when they are released and decide for ourselves

how 'good' or 'bad' they really are.

[speedoo]

33. OP was totally wrong.

The "CRUSHING" info was some voter enthusiasm info from pre-debate poll.

Entire thread is a complete waste of time.

[K Gardner]

38. I'd be so embarassed about posting this I do believe I would delete it. Good god. n/t