Candidate down 10 to 20 points in the polls WINS!

[techs]

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...alaska_senate-562.html

We have all found out this year the incredible accuracy of the polls. See the Presidential polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...cain_vs_obama-225.html

So how can Begich in Alaska be so far ahead in Alaska and lose?
While everyone is asking what's wrong with Alaskans for voting for guy with 7 felony convictions, no one seems to be asking how the polls in Alaska could be so wrong?

While an election ending up different in the polls is not in itself evidence that something funny was going on, it is a reason on the face of it, to be looked into.

I am calling on Sarah Palin to ask the Justice Department to investigate.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: techs


I am calling on Sarah Palin to ask the Justice Department to investigate.

I'm sure she'll jump right on that now that you are requesting it. :roll: tard

 

[Craig234]

Some theories.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Some theories.

Yeah, that blogger raises good points:


The pollsters? predictions were mostly right on election night ? everywhere but the state of Alaska.

As late as two days before the election, both Democratic and Republican-sponsored polls had Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a Democrat, leading Senator Ted Stevens for the U.S. Senate seat a week after Mr. Stevens?s conviction on seven felony accounts of corruption.

But on Thursday evening, Mr. Stevens (who plans to appeal his conviction), held a 3,257-vote lead over Mr. Begich, with 60,000 votes still to be counted.

In addition, the state?s lone House seat was predicted by local pollsters to go to Ethan Berkowitz, a Democrat, over the incumbent Don Young, who is under federal investigation. Mr. Young has a lead of 16,939 votes over Mr. Berkowitz as of this morning, despite Mr. Berkowitz?s lead of about seven points in one poll two days ago.

?We?re still trying to figure it out, to be perfectly honest,? Mike Coumbe, executive director of Alaska?s Democratic Party said in a telephone interview this afternoon.

What happened in Alaska to leave pollsters and Democratic party officials stumped? The answer leads to another question: where did all the voters go?

 

[fskimospy]

Public opinion would probably swing wildly in a race with a huge bombshell like that dropping so close to the election. It doesn't mean that the polls were wrong, it just means that a poll taken a few days before the election might find a very different electorate than on actual election day.

 

[Lemon law]

Since I can't offer any factual basis for voter fraud, it would be irresponsible to say only that could explain it. But I could offer a theory that it may be a variant of the Bradley effect.

For the average Alaska citizen, it wonderful to see every dollar they send to the Federal government come back doubled each and every year, and what rational Alaskan would every want to see the demise
of that Golden Goose? While the average voter may be honest, not steal candy from babies, its still hard to turn down free money, even when the bearer of these gifts are as openly corrupt as the day is long.

And while the average Alaskan voter may be loathe to tell a pollster that they would vote for a crook, when they get into the voting booth, they tend to vote for the crook because they worry their free ride might end. After all, its not like they are dishonest, they are simple voting for the Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to them.

 

[ProfJohn]

McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

In fairness, if, hypothetically, irregularities and/or vote rigging occurred in these two other federal races, it would presumably also have occurred in the Presidential race. I agree Alaska (where I've lived) is very politically conservative, but this is undeniably a somewhat odd outcome.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

While I'm sure those numbers are indeed factual, does this show that Republicans believe that party is more important than honesty?

I certainly don't think I could vote for a Democrat who had been convicted of 7 felonies...especially felonies involving corruption charges.
Sounds like a case of "He may be a crook, but he's OUR crook."

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

While I'm sure those numbers are indeed factual, does this show that Republicans believe that party is more important than honesty?

I certainly don't think I could vote for a Democrat who had been convicted of 7 felonies...especially felonies involving corruption charges.
Sounds like a case of "He may be a crook, but he's OUR crook."

Paul Begala talked about the race between a Democrat under investigation and David Duke the kkk candidate. He said the bumper sticker said:
Vote for the Crook. It's Important.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

If the polls matched the votes in the presidential race, and not the other races, that's suspicious. I haven't checked to see if that's what happened.

 

[SP33Demon]

Nate from 538 (which only got one state wrong this election) predicted Begich should win anywhere from 5-10 points after polling. This is indeed very fishy.

 

[RichardE]

Unless the polls saying "so and so" would win brought out republican supporters en masse to actually vote.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am going to guess that a lot of people figured Stevens would get kicked out and Palin would then nominate someone else to take his place and might have decided that they would rather vote Stevens in order to keep a Republican in that Senate seat.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yeah, either could have happened ProfJohn and RichardE. Good points.

 

[midway]

Nate at fivethirtyeight has his most recent entry up about this one

Uncounted Votes May Push Begich Past Stevens

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Unless the polls saying "so and so" would win brought out republican supporters en masse to actually vote.

or make the democrat voters think victory was secured and caused a low turnout

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am going to guess that a lot of people figured Stevens would get kicked out and Palin would then nominate someone else to take his place and might have decided that they would rather vote Stevens in order to keep a Republican in that Senate seat.

Possibly, but wouldn't the polls have taken that into account as well? If people were going to vote for Stevens, whatever the reason, it seems like the polls should have reflected that.

 

[Rainsford]

I wonder if the result is like a "Bradley Effect" (even though there is no such effect) for felons. When a pollster calls you up, who wants to SAY they are voting for a crooked, dishonest felon of a candidate? But when you're alone in the voting booth, that may not be as much of a concern. Stevens was known as a complete knob nationally before he was caught breaking the law, yet he was still quite popular in Alaska. Perhaps the voting standards there are different, even if they don't want to admit it.

 

[cubeless]

maybe alaskans understand the value of having your crook in instead of their crook...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am going to guess that a lot of people figured Stevens would get kicked out and Palin would then nominate someone else to take his place and might have decided that they would rather vote Stevens in order to keep a Republican in that Senate seat.

But this doesn't explain why the polls showed Begich with a comfortable lead, even the poll taken the morning of the election. This motivation for voting for Stevens - if true - would have been captured in the polling data. That is, if your theory were true, then when polled, these people would have reported they were voting for Stevens, not for Begich. The REASON they were voting for Stevens is irrelevant to the poll results.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...alaska_senate-562.html

We have all found out this year the incredible accuracy of the polls. See the Presidential polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...cain_vs_obama-225.html

So how can Begich in Alaska be so far ahead in Alaska and lose?
While everyone is asking what's wrong with Alaskans for voting for guy with 7 felony convictions, no one seems to be asking how the polls in Alaska could be so wrong?

While an election ending up different in the polls is not in itself evidence that something funny was going on, it is a reason on the face of it, to be looked into.

I am calling on Sarah Palin to ask the Justice Department to investigate.

Stevens hasn't won yet. The uncounted ballots are from absentee/early ballots, which have been running strongly Democratic. Begich will probably win.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: techs
no one seems to be asking how the polls in Alaska could be so wrong?

This year has been an absolute explosion in the number of polls taken. The odds of one of them being inaccurate is actually pretty high. This could be explained solely by statistical probability.

 

[dbk]

Originally posted by: midway
Nate at fivethirtyeight has his most recent entry up about this one

Uncounted Votes May Push Begich Past Stevens

Wow, look at all those votes still to be counted.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
McCain won Alaska 62-36

Prior to this year Stevens had NEVER received less than two-thirds of the vote. It is a very Republican state.

While I'm sure those numbers are indeed factual, does this show that Republicans believe that party is more important than honesty?

I certainly don't think I could vote for a Democrat who had been convicted of 7 felonies...especially felonies involving corruption charges.
Sounds like a case of "He may be a crook, but he's OUR crook."

Alcee Hastings. William Jefferson. Dan Rostenkowski.