MSNBC Veepstakes Update: Clark still on top

[cosmokramer]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

Nunn out, Zinni in, all others stay the same.

Added: Curious that last week there were roughly 9,800 votes. This week, over 21,500 votes. Between last night at 1:00 a.m. when I check for an update, and this morning when it was updated, more than 8,000 votes were cast. VERY STRANGE that last week Clark up over Edwards by 20%, but this week by a nose, considering 8,000 votes were cast over night bringing Edwards closer. JE PR firm? Curious.

[Richardo]

1. Oh please oh please oh please...

Pwetty pwease?

[venus]

25. Keep hope alive! As Jesse Jackson would say.

Wes Clark as V.P. would be the greatest thing to happen in national politics in a very long time. Go Wes!

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Yee... friggin'... haw!

*champagne cork*

Leading in an un-scientific, online poll. Will wonders never cease?

/sarcasm off
:eyes:

[Scoopie]

10. All polls are unscientific

because they're biased in their wording and/or in whom they call and/or e-mail. For example, this week's online Zogby poll asks whether I would be more likely to vote for Kerry/Dean or Kerry/Gephart. Gee... considering I haven't heard a WORD about Dean being vetted for the process from a legitimate source, why even ask the freaking question?

Besides, Kerry's not a poll guy, I hear, so it doesn't matter. The fact remains is that he has said and continues to say that he's looking for a Veep with FP experience.
I'd like it to be Clark, but, if not, I'm happy that Kerry sees that it's time to realize that, to beat Bush, we must beat him at his own game (and, with Bush, it is just a game - national security expert my ass).

[JI7]

11. not true, scientific polls were very accurate during the primary

the scientific polls done before actual voting took place and the exit polls which are also scientific polls and taken after the voting is done were very accurate and often reflected the actual outcomes of the elections.

[cosmokramer]

13. They were not accurate...

...until the day before a primary. All of the advance 'scientific' polls (a week or so before a primary) were WRONG. Otherwise, Dean would be the nominee.

[JI7]

17. that makes no sense

we wouldn't know how accurate they were because voting was not held that day for when dean was ahead, but he was ahead in the polls. but the scientific polls done around the time of the voting were accurate. just as the scientific exit polls in vermont which showed dean ahead was accurate.

[spooky3]

18. "Scientific" refers to the process by which the data were collected

and not to accuracy of prediction. It's a matter of degree, not black/white. The major difference between the MSNBC poll and legitimate polls is that there is no attempt whatsoever to achieve a random sample, and in fact MSNBC lets the same self-selected person vote multiple times, which is not done in any poll attempting to be "scientific".

MSNBC's site makes it VERY clear that the poll does not purport to be scientific to ANY degree and spells out why (click on the link). That's to their credit.

Polls that are conducted using sound scientific methods use random sampling with adequate sample size, carefully worded questions, etc., and they report margins of error. Even perfect polls will be wrong 5% of the time given the statistical assumptions made. The pollsters who attempt to do a good job (unlike online polls) try to get a random sample but this is very hard given that they cannot force a cross section of people to participate. This will reduce their accuracy.

[Jai4WKC08]

44. All very true, spooky, but...

I think what was meant up-thread is that even "scientific" polls can be manipulated to give whatever outcome is desired. And in fact, many national pollsters are completely unscrupulous about engineering results. The way the question is worded, the way the answers are presented, the way the data is collected, the way non-responses are accounted for (and sometimes solicited)--all factor into even "scientific" polling.

Competent, professional, unbiased pollsters provide their questions and answers, who contracted for the poll, and usually some information about the methodology used. Unfortunately, there are few of these pollsters around and the media reports even less of the background information.

Ya can't trust nobody.

All that said, and granted that this on-line poll is "unscientific," there is some significance (statistical and substantive) in the very large size of the sample, especially considered with prior weeks' data. There's just no way that the relatively small number (several hundred at most) of ACTIVE members of the on-line Clark grassroots could have affected the outcome.

[spooky3]

52. Sorry, I have to agree on some but disagree with you on other points.

I agree that very little info is provided to us non-paying customers.

If "scientific" polls are manipulated, then they are nearer the 0 point on the scientific thread than the 10 point. By definition the scientific methods exist to try to reduce bias as much as possible. If you discard all polls as basically poorly conducted and useless, or equally bad, then you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Better to look at data, e.g., compare their methods and look at the history of their ability to predict.

There is no significance from a statistical point of view of results from a poll like MSNBC's, where people can choose themselves for inclusion based on a medium to which not all in the population to which you want to generalize have access, and can vote as many times as they wish. I know of non-political internet polls where people actually were able to vote thousands of times--I know, I know, get a life, but that is what they did.

If you want to enjoy the results of the MSNBC poll, I have no problem with that, but it's not correct to say that the size of the "sample" gives this poll ANY value from a scientific standpoint.

I agree with you that some pollsters (e.g., Fox) have an agenda, but to the extent that they do not follow good scientific methods (e.g., in their choice of wording, in their choice of sampling, etc.) they are not "scientific" polls, regardless of what they may claim. Most competent pollsters survive financially by their ability to predict behavior so there is an incentive beyond integrity to use better methods.

[David__77]

3. Clark or Zinni would be good choices.

Either way, this is a signal that we aim to restore a basic competency to the nation's affairs. Bush's radicalism will destroy the United States forever, and take the world along for the ride to hell on earth.

[wjsander]

5. Kerry/Zinni 2004

Rolls right off the tongue. :)

[cosmokramer]

7. Hell no! ZINNI IS A BUSH SUPPORTER!

[Kahuna]

12. Zinni WAS a bush supporter.

nt

[Jai4WKC08]

43. No, Zinni still is a Bush supporter

I've listend to him several times since his book came out. He maintains the problems in Iraq originate fully in the Dept of Defense. He wants Bush to fire Rumsfeld and many of the senior civilians there. But he doesn't hold Bush directly responsible for the policy or the actions of his subordinates (odd for a military officer--he's truly "blinded by the right"). About the closest he's been willing to come is to say if Rumsfeld is still SecDef in Nov, he will have a hard time deciding how to vote.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Yee* Friggin'* Haw is RIGHT!

Go Wes Go!!! WOO*FRIGGIN*HOO! :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[molly]

6. What a gorgeous man - smart too!

[TexasSissy]

8. Zinni is a Republican.

[cosmokramer]

9. WOW...you and I agree on something! :-)

I think it is outright silly to even consider republicans on our ticket...we have dozens and dozens of GOOD democrats that could easily take the VP slot, so why even consider folks like Zinni and Nunn who are anti-choice and anti-gays in the military? Makes no sense whatsoever!

[Darkamber]

14. There's no JRE PR Firm...

that ideal is just silly. The answer is very simple. Yesterday they did the Veep-stake piece. In that piece they talked about Edwards and there was no talk about Clark. At the end of that piece they did a mention of the website and encouraged watchers to vote and showed the website and gave the address.

Your increase in votes came from them promoting the web-site and the votes.

Kerry will pick who he feels is best and this internet poll will have no effect. And I would say that even if Edwards was #1. It just is not important as it is an internet poll.

[funky_bug]

15. No JE PR firm?

Now, while I have no evidence to the contrary, I am leaning toward disagreement. This is the gentleman who is actively "raising awareness" in a "highly unusual" self-promotion geared at garnering the VP slot. To say he has no PR folk working to help him achieve his goals sounds downright naive. Of course, I can't ask you to prove he doesn't (you can't prove a negative), but I think your claim that he doesn't is highly unlikely, given the amount of energy he's putting into his political aspirations.

[Darkamber]

16. He has his One America

But that is not promoting him directly. That is promoting John Kerry and supporting efforts to get other democrats into the Senate and House and that is what he is doing. Something very important like trying to help gain control of the Senate again, which is just about as important as winning the White house in Nov.

But the poster was claiming that the reason why he got more votes in the last day was because he had some PR firm pushing for him on this internet vote. And I find that statement laughable considering the timing, the story on MSNBC and the promo of the Website at the end of the Veep stake story.

[funky_bug]

19. So he does have a PR firm

Your post stated he did not. Clear enough.

And as far as "freeping" MSNBC goes, I normally always stand by cosmo, but in this I have my doubts. Just about everyone has access to the Internet and can cast a vote. To say this candidate's supporters or that candidate's supporters are jamming the poll doesn't work for me. If everyone jammed polls in support of their candidate, then it really would even out the margin of disparity, wouldn't it? After all, if JR folk can get up and vote their butts off, so can Clark folk, McCain folk, etc... The fact that cosmo mentioned a PR firm might make a bit more sense, but I still have my doubts.

[Darkamber]

20. If a PAC is a PR firm then Clark has a PR firm too...

If you consider a PAC to be a PR firm then I guess you could make that statement. I don't see a PAC as PR firm but what it is a Political Action Committee. In Edwards case, it is formed to help John Kerry and other Democrats in Congress.

WESPAC's purpose or statement is different I believe it has to do with Foreign policy issues, but I only glanced at it once and I could be completely wrong, so please feel free to correct me about the stated purpose of WESPAC.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. You are mistaken

Edwards' lawyer buddies have hired a PR firm to push his candidacy as VP. It's completely separate from his PAC.

[funky_bug]

36. I swing, you hit it out of the park

I can always count on you to pick up on my innuendos... though I hoped maybe someone from Edward's supporter base would fess up.

Good job, hf_jai! :hug:

[Darkamber]

51. Do you have a name or link to the article?

And those lawyer buddies are raising a ton of money for Kerry. And for that matter...can you see these lawyers staying up until 1:00am deleting cookies and trying to change the votes so that Edwards can beat Clark in an internet poll?

The imagine alone just cracks me up.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooky3]

23. "The One America Committee is dedicated to helping elect Democratic

candidates and ensuring that John Kerry is elected President."

Purpose of the OAC as stated at:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/

Do public relations firms, most if not all of which are (a) profit-making and (b) paid by clients and not by contributions, have this as their objective? I hardly see how this organization can be called a PR firm.

Edwards and Clark seem to me to be doing the same things right now--trying to help the party. If you find one to be "self-promoting", that's equally true of both, so if you consider that objectionable, they both are objectionable. In my view, they are both to be admired; they both could be much more efficiently increasing their own wealth and well-being right now, as well as enjoying far more leisure time. Neither of them needs to be working so hard for others. Obviously they both want to help get Bush and his lackeys out of office. I'm glad they are working so hard for this objective.

[funky_bug]

24. Agreed... almost...

I was just questioning the notion that JE doesn't have people actively helping him pursue the VP slot... particularly given the recent articles stating his unusual efforts to raise public awareness for his intent to secure the position...

However, I agree that both men have considerable intelligence and connections, and both men could be living quiet, successful lives had they not chosen to serve their country for the better good of all.

[Darkamber]

50. And so does Clark, but that's not a PR firm...

Each one of you here on DU, each one of you writing to newspapers and posting on other internet sites and voting in these polls are actively promoting Clark for the VP spot. This thread promotes Clark in the VP spot. Are you not actively helping him to pursue the VP slot?

But does this mean that we are voting at 1:00am to give Edwards the nug for VP in an internet poll? I don't think so. I've never seen or heard anything such interest about such a thing.

Both men are excellent and both men have fine supporters who want the same common goals to remove Bush from Office.

[venus]

27. Regain control of the Senate? Then why did he quit the Senate

just when we needed him the most. Geeez, even Kerry, and Lieberman, and Graham, and Kucinich didn't quit. That's probably my biggest beef with Edwards. I used to be a fan back in 2000.

[BootinUp]

30. To put pressure on the nominee

to select him as VP, would be my guess. :shrug:

[funky_bug]

31. Zing!

You ARE bad today, Jim!

:smoke:

[Jai4WKC08]

45. And so he wouldn't get embarrassed

By a defeat for his Senate seat. Or even by bad poll results while he campaigned for VP.

[funky_bug]

53. Good Point!

We've had posters from JE's home state say they're none to fond of their Senator. He quite possibly may have been on his way out.

Frankly speaking, if he can't represent his state to their satisfaction, how the hell is he going to represent our broken and shamed nation to the rest of the world?

[Darkamber]

46. He was pressured by the NC democrats to make a choice

He opted to try for the presidential run. Plus there is a Democratic Governer in NC. If he had gotten the nod then a Democrat would have stepped into his place. Plus he's backing Bowles who looks good to step into his seat. We are not loosing anything in NC. And Kerry has only made 16 votes this year. House's individual votes are not as important as the Senate, where the split is nearly 50/50.

And I'm tired of hearing this ideal that he stepped down because he couldn't get relected. That's not what I have heard from the NC voters that I know. They say that he would have been re-elected. Plus his run has put NC on the map and their concerns got national attention. It use to be the Jesse Helms state and now it is the John Edwards state. Please tell me that why that is an awful thing.

[cosmokramer]

38. Silly, eh?

Edwards' lawyer buddies have hired a PR firm to push his candidacy as VP. It's completely separate from his PAC.

[AP]

22. Maybe JRE was up by 7,000 last night and the Clark PR firm got it in...

...gear to get Clark up by a nose?

[cosmokramer]

39. Oh, come on AP, you are smarter than that!

You are a smart guy, please don't go there. It is mathematically impossible if Clark was ahead by 20% last week with a total vote count of 9,800 or so that he would fall so low that a PR firm (which he doesn't have, but Edwards does) would need to make up 8,000 votes to nudge him ahead.

Don't you find it curious, whether or not is was a PR firm, that over 8,000 votes were cast between 1:00 a.m. and this morning? Regardless of who or what is to blame, it is very strange.

[Darkamber]

47. I don't find it curious...

Unless you know that the votes were downloading into records in real time and not stored in a data holding place and then downloaded at once. the explanation remains very simple....

That MSNBC did a story on the Veep stakes and talked about Edwards, two others who were not an option to vote for at the site. Then they did a plug for the site. People saw it that hadn't before and they voted...period. No conspiracy. Go gang up to get Clark. Just new people who didn't know about it before because they don't post on these kind of sites.

The ideal that Edwards has a PR firm trying to rig this at 1:00am is just laughable and I'm surprised that you are not smarter then that.

[cosmokramer]

48. Bullshit!

They do the same program every single week...people didn't suddenly just storm the MSNBC site and vote--that is totally naive.

[Darkamber]

54. excuse me...

Do they basically advertise the site every week? Do they do a Veep stake story on air every week and right before the deadline when they tally the votes? You are the one who suggested that Edwards had some kind of PR firm that got 8,000 votes at 1:00am. The point is that MOST people had forgotten all about this poll. They voted once and then forgot about it. The numbers had been dropping off each week. They got a sudden bump AFTER they did the VP piece and advertised the site on the show. Why is it so hard for you to believe that maybe...just maybe a few additional people were watching and voted that normally hadn't voted? And that maybe the data was downloaded at 1:00am from the time of the show until the end. If this bump had happened BEFORE the show and earlier in the week...there might have been something about your comment. But it didn't. It happened AFTER the VP show and their advertising the site with a picture that clearly showed Clark at #1.

Or maybe I should give up. Yeap...you're right. It's a bunch of lawyers in a secret backroom deleting cookies and voting for Edwards over and over again so he can beat Clark in an Internet poll. They are all part of a big media/lawyer conspiracy to get Edwards as VP no matter what the cost. And don't forget that Lawyers don't come cheap.

And I have no problem with Clark being #1. I what I object to is this ideal that Edwards has some secret team out there rigging the poll at 1:00am, especially when the obvious and simply explanation is right in front of you.

[cosmokramer]

55. Yes, my dear, they DO advertise the site every week...

...every single week, every single day. There is no hording of data wherein it could be dumped in bulk, and 8,000 independant people did not vote in the middle of the night. Period.

I don't know if it was freeped, I don't know if it was the PR firm...no one knows. But it definitely wasn't legit, and it most certainly was not 8,000 independant people.

[AP]

49. I guess not, 'cause that post just leaves me saying, "huh?"

One thing I do know is that Clark has huge presense on the internet.

But I do know that no conclusions can be drawn on the evidence you have here.

And that was the point of my post.

[deminflorida]

26. The Boys over at Free-Republic have been voting their assess

off for John Edwards.

[funky_bug]

28. Scary thought... BUT...

not too long ago, someone here reported that someone from Free Republic was bragging about how they signed up for DU and "had us all fooled, boy ha ha..." so I decided to sign up for FR myself, just to let him/her know (in the presence of their peers, of course) that we were on to the "gag" (which is precisely what I did after I got my FR password - gag, that is.)

Guess what else I noticed while I was there? They like Edwards... they really do. They like that they think he's an easy target. They don't want him to be vice-president - they want him to be the vice-president on the losing ticket.

Personally, I think they may be underestimating him, but he has lost a bit of his shine (for me) in the last few months.

[Padraig18]

29. Proof, please.

Such an outrageous statement shoud not go unchallenged, no matter who it is directed toward.

[funky_bug]

32. Take it with a grain, Paddy

You and I may come from different camps within the same camp, but we've both got some fellow campers with axes to grind.

[Padraig18]

33. That's an outrageous statement, though.

I'd have posted the same, were it about Clark, Gephardt, Graham, Bayh or anyone. That's just over the top, IMO, to say something like that about a fellow Democrat.

[funky_bug]

35. Agreed

Just don't let it get to you - you seemed really fired up about it, and I hope you realize most of us know when statements are fired off the cuff with little or no basis in reality.

:pals:

[Padraig18]

37. More shocked than fired up, really.

My jaw almost hit the keyboard after I read it. I even re-read it, just to be sure I didn't miss a word. I can't imagine a situation where'd I'd say something so totally outrageous about a fellow Democrat, and I'm a product of the Chicago Democratic machine who cut my teeth on ward politics.

[robbedvoter]

40. Nothing they didn't do in the primaries - check second column(not in ( ):

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/
index.htmlpinion of
Bhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/
index.htmlush Administration
Angry (32%) 3% 32% 56% 2% 7%
Dissatisfied (43%) 1% 34% 58% 0% 6%
Satisfied (13%) 2% 64% 23% 1% 6%
Enthusiastic (8%) 5% 70% 9% 2% 11% - second number is Edwards

What they really want
Would You Be Satisfied...
Only if Edwards Wins (21%) 2% 88% 6% 0% 3%
Only if Kerry Wins (27%) 1% 4% 90% 0% 4%
If Either Wins (42%) 2% 42% 48% 1% 6%
Only if Someone Else (7%) 6% 34% 12% 7% 35%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/index.html

Translation: 70% of people enthusiastic about W (freepers) voted Edwards

[Padraig18]

41. That' not about the MSNBC poll.

My comment was.

[robbedvoter]

42. You are more shocked that an internet poll is freeped than a vote?

Wow!

[spooky3]

57. As you have been told many times, your math is incorrect.

I don't have the energy to explain it again.

[deminflorida]

56. Please don't be shocked....I like John Edwards and would be just

as happy to have him as V.P., I'll work my ass off for the ticket just like I would if Clark were V.P. or Gephardt or anyone else for that matter. But, my brother from Alabama posts to Free Republic often...and I know for a fact lots of them prefer Edwards to Clark and they ARE freeping polls.

The point of my post is to inform not to insult.

My God they were talking about V.P. on CNN today and all I heard was Edwards, Edwards, Edwards....

Sorry...but if you don't think the media prefers him then you really are not very enlightened about what's going on with the right-wing in this country.

Clark will cause them to shit their pants....simply because of the National Security resume....

The latest polls today show that uninformed Americans or dis-interested ones, 57% to be exact now think the War in Iraq is going well....The thought of Clark on national T.V. pointing out what's going wrong over there is not what the GOP or Right-Wing wants the public the hear right now.