The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6893|Los Angeles
A intereting new poll conducted by the Center for Rural Strategies shows that the support for Republicans in rural America has crumbled significantly. Normally the large demographic votes overwhelmingly Republican, so the fact that the polls are relatively even is seen as a huge threat to the Republican party in upcoming elections.

from the NPR article on the subject:

NPR article wrote:

"I don't think you can overstate how critical (the rural vote) is," says Bill Greener, a Republican political consultant who helped design the bipartisan poll and analyzed its results. "Rural voters have given their votes to Republicans over the years… If we do not do well among (rural voters), it's hard to see how (we can) continue to prevail."
from the DMR article on the subject:

Des Moines Register wrote:

The poll found rural voters:

•Believe the country is on the wrong track. There were 56 percent who said the country was headed in the wrong direction while only 35 percent said things were going in the right direction.

•Are divided about Bush’s performance in office. There were 47 percent who approved of the job he’s doing and 48 percent who disapproved. While that’s not good for Bush, it is a better rating than he gets with the country as a whole.

•Divided evenly between the two parties in races for the U.S. House. Each party captures 45 percent of the rural vote. The rest are undecided or for third-party or non-party candidates.

•In the Senate races measured, gave the Republican candidate 47 percent of the vote and the Democratic candidate 43 percent.

•Gave a slight edge to Democrats when asked which party cares more about rural issues. Democrats won 42 percent; Republicans got 36 percent.

•Mentioned a variety of issues as “most important” to them. The plurality — 17percent — said the war in Iraq was the most important issue to them. Jobs and the economy was mentioned by 14 percent and terrorism and national security were cited by 13 percent. Moral values were cited by 10 percent.
That said, the DMR article also pointed out that the Republicans have an advantage in that they have more incumbents, and rural voters naturally believe in maintaining the status quo:

Des Moines Register wrote:

Fifty-two percent agreed with the statement that “things in the country could be doing better but the incumbent deserves re-election.” Only 34percent said they were so angry they would vote against the incumbent.
Overall, the poll results would seem to put the Republicans' already-shaky footing for November elections on even shakier ground.
Major_Spittle
Banned
+276|7048|United States of America
already getting your hopes up.........  Just remember that everyone wants to vote Democrat, but then the Democratic candidates start talking and become unelectable.  This is why those polls never include canidates names.  yawnnnnnn. 

I always say that I won't vote republican until I see the democrat that is running against the republican and decide I can't afford to throw my vote away to try to get the republican party to reform itself.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6893|Los Angeles

Major_Spittle wrote:

This is why those polls never include canidates names.  yawnnnnnn.
Really?

Certainly, you went to the poll web site and checked for yourself?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7164|PNW

I'm not reliably Republican nor Democrat. Nor third-party. I vote for the person I want to be in a particular office, regardless of affiliation.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-23 12:00:00)

ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6895
As someone who could be considered a rural voter, I understand what that poll is talking about, however, most rural voters I know (which is a lot) are pissed with republicans, but most still considere democrats worse.  So it's kind of a moot point poll to me.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|7113|California

in the end.. the Florida Lost Polls Monster will terrorise the day anyways
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6922|Global Command
Wishfull thinking on NPR's part.

Whenever I link to a FOX news article I get scoffed at.

NPR?  scoff scoff
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA

ATG wrote:

Wishfull thinking on NPR's part.

Whenever I link to a FOX news article I get scoffed at.

NPR?  scoff scoff
+10,000,000

About time someone said something like that.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Overall, the poll results would seem to put the Republicans' already-shaky footing for November elections on even shakier ground.
You've got to be kidding me, take a statistics class dude, do you even know how polls work???

from your source
The poll of rural voters in 41 contested congressional districts with significant rural populations found Democratic and Republican candidates running a dead heat, with each party receiving 45 percent of the possible votes. In six contested Senate races in states with significant rural populations, rural voters favored Republican candidates 47 to 43 percent, but the gap falls within the poll’s margin of error of 4.3 percentage points, making a statistical tie.
A prediction: I think you are going to be throrougly surprised with the results of Election 2006, just making sure I get this down on paper(virtual) so that I can refer back to it later.  Good day.


To add: I would be interested in EXACTLY how many people were polled in EACH district.  Unless they publish that information, this poll means nothing.

Edit: Nevermind I just found it from your glorious NPR article let's take a read.

NPR wrote:

In the new poll, 529 likely voters were surveyed in 41 of the nation's most competitive congressional districts and in the six states with the most competitive Senate races. All of the people surveyed live in rural areas and all of the districts and states surveyed have large rural populations.
LMFAO you've got to be kidding me, a poll from roughly 500 people.  And you think that accurately can show voter support.  The NPR title of that article should have read Rural Voters Poll Not So Reliable.

Once again 529 LIKELY voters, so they might have not voted, were not eligible, were illegal aliens, but that aside I can't stop laughing about the 529 number that is really sad.

A statistical tie, with that data pool, I think not.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-23 17:18:23)

The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6893|Los Angeles

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

ATG wrote:

Wishfull thinking on NPR's part.

Whenever I link to a FOX news article I get scoffed at.

NPR?  scoff scoff
+10,000,000

About time someone said something like that.
Funny - I could have sworn I linked to the web site of the organization that conducted the poll.

And that my NPR quote was from a REPUBLICAN consultant.

Maybe I need to go back and check the facts and the Republican's comments for liberal bias.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Overall, the poll results would seem to put the Republicans' already-shaky footing for November elections on even shakier ground.
You've got to be kidding me, take a statistics class dude, do you even know how polls work???
You just love that retort, don't you? The ol' "take a ____ class and maybe you'll learn something" line. I don't read BF2S religiously, and I swear I've seen you use that line at least half a dozen times.

Running a search with AlbertWesker[RE] as the author and "class" as the keyword brings up two pages of results. I see "take an econ class" a few times and "take a law class" in there as well. Time to get a new zinger, perhaps?

In any case, yes, I have taken a statistics class. Many. I had to take C-level stats for my econ degree.  You asked me if I "even know how polls work" with four question marks for super-mega pwnage emphasis, I suppose. Indeed I do know how polls work. If you truly had the understanding of math and statistics that you imply, then you wouldn't be doubting the findings of random polls conducted by long-standing, non-partisan bodies. You would accept a poll of even 10 people, so long as the margin of error was presented and calculated correctly.

So, Mr Wesker, would you please let me know how you're calculating the margin of error? And would you please let us know exactly what problem you have with this poll?

And please, I hope you're not going to tell us that the sample size is too small. Surely YOU'VE taken the stats class that you so subtly suggested I should take.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7044|USA
yeah boy, you have no choice but to hang your hat on whatever a POLL reveals...

Last edited by lowing (2006-09-24 04:33:16)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

And please, I hope you're not going to tell us that the sample size is too small. Surely YOU'VE taken the stats class that you so subtly suggested I should take.
Ok So I do use that phrase a lot, I'm guilty of that, and I will sum this up for you with one sentence, because you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY ENTIRE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EVEN WHEN I HIGHLIGHTED IT FOR YOU

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

In the new poll, 529 likely voters were surveyed in 41 of the nation's most competitive congressional districts and in the six states with the most competitive Senate races.
They polled 529 people, and you think that is cause for alarm for rural instability in relation to Republican constinuencies???  Thats my question to you man, thats it.

Personally, I don't think 530 people is a large enough pool to accurately profile any area for any stat. Ever.

Just my 2 cents, sorry if my other post was a little personal, I was just surprised you didn't read your own source close enough to realize that 529 people is NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE, even for poll standards.

Edit: Think of it this way.  I'm guessing that the total population of these districts polled was well over 530, and well over 1000, and probably well over 100,000.  So lets assume 100,000.  That means that they are deriving a "statistical tie" as they put it from .005% of the population in question.  And thats giving them credit with a low population assumption.  Still think thats accurate, or am I missing something, if I missed someting, PLEASE correct me, I'm not trying to be rude here, but cmon now.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-24 05:07:14)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

And please, I hope you're not going to tell us that the sample size is too small. Surely YOU'VE taken the stats class that you so subtly suggested I should take.
Theres a difference between a sample size that is just kinda low, and this poll.  FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE PEOPLE.  Gimme a break.

As for my previous "have you ever taken a (insert subject) class before".  I'm just sick of people on here that automatically think they know everything about something and don't make any sense.  I probably wasn't warranted to use the phrase in your case, because you usually make well thought out and well "spoken" posts.  I was just so absolutely amazed that there was only 529 people, cmon man, you gotta agree with me here, that is just WAY TOO SMALL.  Not just questionably small, way too small.

If you can find some fact or source that says the population of these 41 districts is only like ~700 people, than I will shut up.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-24 05:16:10)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA
BTT

Cmon Ship, don't back outta this one.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7083|Tampa Bay Florida
People usually don't back out of things unless they get bored of arguing.  Give him time.  Or don't.  You can't blame someone, it's not like this is a debate on CNN
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA
Yeah spear, I was kinda just kidding, I was only trying to BTT,

I haven't blamed him yet?

So do you think 529 people is an adequate pool for an accurate poll involving FORTY ONE congressional districts???
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7083|Tampa Bay Florida
Well, it might or might not have an ounce of truth, but no, you can't call it valid and base your whole argument on such a small poll.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-09-25 18:55:30)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7037|Seattle, WA

Spearhead wrote:

Well, it might or might not have an ounce of truth, but no, you can't call it valid and base your whole argument on such a small poll.
Thank you God someone has some common sense omgz.  Thank you spear, you just made my awesome list.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard