Big10: IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, PA, WI, IL (9/14-17)
Eric Dienstfrey | September 18, 2008
Topics: PHome
Big Ten Battleground Poll /
University of Wisconsin-Madison
9/14-17/08; ~600 RV, 4%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
(full results)
Illinois
Obama 53, McCain 37
Indiana
McCain 47, Obama 43
Iowa
McCain 45, Obama 45
Michigan
Obama 48, McCain 44
Minnesota
Obama 47, McCain 45
Ohio
Obama 46, McCain 45
Pennsylvania
Obama 45, McCain 45
Wisconsin
Obama 45, McCain 44
By Eric Dienstfrey | September 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (159) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments
all these polls are wrong new in these states there are nearly 500,000 million new voters and counting so let get the facts stright
Wow. These numbers are really close.
Wow, wow, wow!
IN needs to go back to pink, but PA & WI need to go yellow!!
I knew Obama was cheating. LAWSON says 500,000 million new voters???
What does it have to do with Obama and cheating?
marctx do you get paid to amuse people?
Very interesting results in both directions.
A lot closer than you might expect in PA, WI (Obama states) but also in IN, OH (McCain states), and showing a trend back towards Obama in MI.
The only result there that I don't think is believeable and is probably an outlier is the IA result. We've seen several polls recently that show Obama well ahead there.
Iowa is the only one to me that seems way off...
Mostly good news for McCain as most of these states should be gimmies for Obama. Good news for Obama in Ohio however.
There's really no info except the above numbers at this point so as of now these cannot be taken too seriously, however...
"Results from the first poll will be broadcast on the Big Ten Network during a television program titled Big Ten Battleground on Sept. 18, at 3 p.m. CDT.
...
Results and data from the poll will be published on this Web site following the TV program."
Details please! It's worthless without them.
My own two cents:
This poll start 9/14, out of date.
Iowa and Pennsylvania will not flip red this year. McCain's efforts there are worthless.
Hmmm...Not sure how much I buy these. A new polling group is never really all that trusty.
IA seems off. McCain seems to have a slight edge in IN, but it's close. OH seems a tie. PA and WI seem close, but Obama's always been ahead (remember folks, WI was a one point state in '00 and '04, and MN was close to.)
The good news is Obama seems up in MI these days...
political_junki:
"cheating" was just joke referring to his ACORN background. ACORN of course had the largest voter fraud case. I'm not even sure how much five hundred thousand million is?
On a serious note. What is the real increase in Democratic voter registration? Does anyone have a link or news article about it?
This is good news for both and bad news for both.
Illinois = O+16 - Duh
Indiana = M+4 - Given the variety of polls, it seems tied.
McCain 47, Obama 43
Iowa = Tied - This seems out there given other polls.
McCain 45, Obama 45
Michigan = O+4 - This has to be a relief to dems and not so good news to reps.
Minnesota = O+2 - This seems way to close for comfort for dems. There should be concern here.
Ohio = O+1 - Third poll that shows is REALLY close.
Pennsylvania = Ties - This should be REAL concern for dems and a damn party for reps.
Wisconsin = O+1 - 2004 was close too. This is going to be a close state.
Wow, much more close than I expected. Wisconsin and Minnesota really that close? This is a good list of polls for McCain. On the other hand national polls are going south for McCain so what does that tell us? I don't think Georgia is becoming suddenly more blue so the movement must be in these swing states which puts these results in a bit odd light.
We need to see the details, sure.
____________________________________
http://www.internationalpoliticstoday.com
Yeah, IA is way off. No other poll corroborates this. Obama up in Ohio too? Ummm, this pollster is suspect at best.......
Looks like the stuff ARG put out....I'll wait for Quinni and SUSA.
Link to PA's voter identification as of early August.
Kind of interesting: IA and PA are tied (where Obama has be ahead) but OH is +1 Obama (where McCain has been ahead).
I would definitely like to see the internals for these polls.
The only one I can't believe is IA.
The only good result for Obama is in OH.
The primary message here is: very close race. This is probably modestly reassuring to McCain as it keeps two big Kerry states in play. OTOH the OH numbers are worrying for McCain as he is open to attacks on the economy there.
PA is going to go yellow if a some strong Obama numbers don't show up soon.
Uh, oh. Indiana flipped from Lean McCain to Toss-up on the big map joining WV from yesterday. Looks like the McCain campaign is collapsing like a subprime mortgage!!!
You know this poll is weird because it shows McCain and Obama even in Iowa. McCain is against corn based ethanol and Obama is for anything that you are for so it makes sense that Obama should be running away with Iowa.
Who else is sickened by the Republicans challenging a voter's residency if their house is foreclosed? That's just sick.
Also, I called it a week ago: Obama is back with a 2-3 (maybe I said 1-2) point lead in the national polls. I just like to say I'm right and I remember some people on this forum saying that it wasn't a bounce. So, to toot my own horn again:
I called it with the national polls. A bounce is a bounce. *wipes sweat off of forehead and sighs in relief*
IN should go back pink as it should be. PA turns yellow. WI and MN should turn yellow or be on the brink!
ROLLER COASTER!
Look at the dates on these polls. The data has shifted dramatically in the past two/three days. They may have ended this poll yesterday, but they began it four days ago...look at the daily tracking numbers to see how quickly it is all shifting.
Hmmm,
What's odd to me is that although most polls (not Rasmussen) show national movement to Obama, the state polls don't tend to confirm.
The reason I like Rasmussen's poll is that he is the only one who explains his weighting methodology ahead of time. These other polls are easier to play games with.
I would be curious to see the sampling Gallup did when McCain was leading compared to the sampling now.
@marctx:
Here is an article about increase in Democratic voter registration:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080907/ap_on_el_pr/voter_registration
PASS ME THE SALT SHAKER OR THE INTERNALS!
700 voters is not helpful. I don't know how much weight to give any of these polls. IA that close? Since when? PA tied - whose PA? Not the state next to NY and NJ. Because the voting pop is 8 or 9 mill adults, to move 2-3% would be 160K to 240K people the idea that with Dem registration in PA exceeding Rep registration by nearly 1 million people that nearly 1.25 million people have shifted from BO to JM in a week is preposterous.
It is always hilarious when I see someone, Dem or Rep equate a 1-2% lead in a smallish state like NM or IA with a large population like FL or MI or PA. However, it is disturbing when "pollsters" don't understand that polling 700 people in NH is not the same as polling 700 people in NJ.
A ton of cr-p polls out today. One pollster polling 400 people in VA, FL and OH; another heavily neo-con web site conducted their own poll - great - let's put a an MSNBC insta web poll, and now this set. Sure JM is tied in PA and IA - but losing in OH? What a waste of time.
Thats why they were in Iowa
Boomshak, RAS has gone from +3 McCain to tied, that may not be outside the MoE, but combined with other polling it's hard to say that RAS is showing something else.
Rasmussen has consistently varied less than other polls (notably Gallup, as it's the most comparable), so it's certainly not surprising that it has shown less movement back towards Obama.
The obvious explanation for the state polls not relfecting the changes in the nationals is that they lag in dates. More importantly toss up states are just less subject to quick changes do to higher information levels.
State polls are always behind the curve with the national polls in my opinion. Next week, we'll probably see some Obama gains in these same swing states.
According to U.S. Census:
Population of U.S.-- +301 million
Number of voting age population (18 yrs. and older citizens)-- +201 million
Number of registered voters in 2006-- 136 million
*Obama estimate of number of eligible population that is not registered to vote-- 55 million
I really don't believe FL is tied. Anybody want to explain to me why or why not this is the case?
Kiptin:
Show me an official statement saying that.
wait they are 10 million off? I don't see the math being an exaggeration. plus 2 years ago is different from now. So what's your point?
As of 9/8/08 voter registration in PA
Dem Rep Ind Oth
Totals: 4,307,056 3,188,759 400,901 560,664
50.8% 37.7% 4.7% 6.6%
Grand Total: 8,457,380
We shall wait to see what the party affiliation breakdoown is from this poll and be able to tell its accuracy.
Incredibly revealing question at Sarah Palin's first "Town Hall Meeting" on ABC. An audience member asks a completely open ended question about Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. Palin is stumped.
It's been clear to liberal bloggers that Palin is an ignoramus. She simply doesn't know much about the world in general. To mitigate that horrendous weakness, Palin's Republican handlers have shut her away from the public while bombarding her with a cram course on the names of world leaders and various policy talking points, assuming that the "gotcha" questions would be something like, "Who is the president of Peru?"
Unfortunately, although her neocon politics cram courses may have included the name of a foreign head of state, it could not possibly include their country's history, the nature of their economy, the degree of their alliance with the US, etc. There simply isn't enough time between now and November to fill in so many enormous knowledge gaps.
In the Town Hall example, Palin's answer to 'tell us what you know about foreign policy' was 'ask me something specific.' That, my friends, is the elusive answer of an empty head. As we all know, a truly educated person can stand before an audience and expound on their area of expertise for quite awhile. If I ask a master carpenter to tell me about carpentry in general, they can do so at length without further prompting. They can describe how to frame a window, how to use a lathe, and on and on.
John McCain made a terrible mistake when he proclaimed Sarah Palin an expert on foreign policy and energy. Each of those two fields requires years of study simply to build a foundational understanding.
For that reason, I recommend asking Sarah Palin open-ended, 'what do you know' type questions. It will quickly become apparent that she really doesn't know much. She will again ask for a more specific question, hoping that it rings a bell with her cram sessions. Otherwise she will be forced to fall back on brain-dead boilerplate like "America stands for freedom," and "The important thing is, we're ready!"
At the next "Town Hall Meeting" I suggest that somebody ask Sarah Palin a question like the following:
"Since Senator McCain has pronounced you a foreign policy expert, it's fair to ask you detailed questions on that subject. Please describe Russia's current governmental system." After all, she can see Russia from her house!
She can't, because she's ignorant.
In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden should emphasize the differences between his own vast knowledge and Sarah Palin's shallow, cocky ignorance. I hope he points out her inability to expound on her answers beyond the simplistic talking points pumped into her empty head by her handlers.
Frankly, Barack Obama should be able to do the same thing to John McCain, who is a self-professed ignoramus. Although McCain admits it as self-deprecating humor, the reality of his ignorance really isn't very funny. He doesn't know how to use a computer. In 2008!
If your car's engine is making a funny noise and you take it to a mechanic, the last thing you want to hear from the mechanic is, "Yep, that's a funny noise all right. I best get to diggin." You'd rather have a serious, expert mechanic, right? Right.
perhaps obama has a lead of 2% nationally now but all of his movment came from heavy Blue states.
the battleground states are still tight and have not shown movement???
nonono...ask:
"Can you describe to us the degrading relationship behind the US and Taiwan and why the United States criticizes cuba on human rights abuses and has strict policies, but doesn't do anything remotely as strict to China? Do you believe in Taiwanese independence?"
I would love to hear her response on Taiwanese independence.
@c y:
Oh yeah there's a movement, check this out
InAdv/PollPosition 09/17 - 09/17
508 LV 51 41 Obama +10
+ recent polls in NM which now turns blue in the RCP map
Iowa
McCain 45, Obama 45
if iowa is actually tied for obama, he's lost the election.
McCain takes a hit in the midwestern states because he doesn't kowtow to the ethonal lobby (obama does).
Details are out. In Pennsylvania the poll has a virtually equal number of democrats and republicans despite democrats holding a 13 point advantage in the state. I haven't checked the other polls yet, but this is pretty absurd.
I'm not seeing any methodology. Anyone find one?
I am puzzled about what "official statement" that you want... Robi. US Census data or Obama campaign estimate of eligible voters who are not yet registered.
If iowa is tied for mccain, he has lost the election.
Some of these repub trolls are astounding in their idiocy.....hmmm, no wonder they like Palin so much.
obama campaign claim. Also, what was your point? That they're not counting 10 million people?
even. even. even.
BTW: you noticed WI? it's very lonely at the top here, calling it out there alone in this lemming world.
now for the lovely Michelle..."dont vote for her because she's cute."
okay, i wont. but others might. let's be real here.
and that goes for all those who "vote for my husband because he's cute." like this isnt a factor?
she should NEVER have said this.
let's get ready to rumble.
There is no way in hell Obama is losing Iowa
Pennsylvania Party affiliation in this poll:
Republican 34.5
Democrat 35.9
Independent 21.9
@booms...
from your lips to god's ears.
except there's a separation of church and state in these here parts.
so, yup, the map changes again. WIsconsin starts its flip, new jersey will flip and iowa is beginning to get nudgy.
i dont expect these polls to stabilize any time soon. But clearly, the most important part of the GE is ahead of us.
we have Ahmadinejad coming here to re-open wounds and concerns, and we have the four debates.
If the market stabilizes which i doubt, but if it does, it takes certain panic off the table.
if most people actually thought they'd realize that obama would empty our already empty coffers but we'd be in even worse hock to china.
in other words, china would hold your health insurance your mortgage, your home, your job.
talk about not exporting jobs, how about exporting the entire country?
wow Sarah was great on Hannity last night ......you can see it on foxnews.com
No, my point is to put number of voters in perspective. Too many number flying around.
Well, I got the 55 million from an Obama press release a while ago, but here is a source:
"In all, Obama’s high command said it had identified 55 million unregistered voters across the country, about 8.1 million of them black, about 8 million Hispanic and 7.5 million between the ages of 18 and 24."
http://www.register-herald.com/homepage/local_story_242004756.html
Umm, greg, I hate to break it to you, but she sounded like she was mildly retarded.
Maybe you are also mildly retarded and so found her answers "great".
The rest of the nation - even the literate that watch fox news - saw her for the dimwit that she is.
Why do you think she is tanking???
"In what respect, Charlie?"
The phrase that will live in INFAMY!
Note: 2006 numbers for number of voters are not that ancient, and the number of increased population in the U.S. in the last two years is mostly non-citizen ineligible voters.
Obama politics is MI has just produced the largest unemployment to date at 8.7&
Friends don't let freinds raise taxes.
boskop - keep dreaming buddy. Hey, do you want to wager on your "predictions"???
No?!?!
Why, I am shocked! Shocked!
Palin hits home run on Tee-Ball with Sean Hannity!!!
In case others have not recognized 'ye who is banned and banned and banned again'... He is resurrected as "mccainandpalinareliars." I found an effective complaint against him to be when he "spams" these blogs with repetitive garbage. No one likes a spammer.
There is a scenario where Obama can get 270 without winning PA, but he has to win VA, CO and NV.
The internals for Iowa show a GOP party ID advantage of 40-35 in that state. Doesn't sound right. I'd expect it to be closer to even or a slight Dem edge.
The Iowa numbers here look like a definite outlier, especially with Selzer - widely recognized as the most accurate Iowa pollster - showing Obama with a +12 lead just a day or so ago. As for the rest, I don't believe PA is tied - I think Obama probably has a 3-4pt lead there. Michigan is probably closer than O +4 - maybe even just O +2 - and I'd bet McCain is ahead 1-3pts in Ohio. MN and WI. Who knows? I'd bet Obama is ahead by a a point or two more in each of those states.
And as others have noted, the Tuesday and Wednesday numbers for Obama in all of these states were probably much better than the previous two days.
MI is in a one state recession thanks to Obama financial polices......Anyone remember Jimmy Carter (OUCH)
@tybo
Party Id in Iowa is Dems 32.4, Reps 27.7 and Inds 32.6
This poll ids are Dems 26.6, Reps 34.1 and Inds 31.9
Looks like they over sampled Reps
Oh no's! Blue states turn yellow!
Yeah, because Obama is the governor of Michigan.
Are you illiterate, Greg???
Obama's tax plan gives a much larger chunk back to the middle and lower class. There is NO debate about this. Since you do not know this, it is apparent you are either an idiot or illiterate.
GET EDUCATED!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Raleigh which state went yellow
If your math is correct, he is short 10 million. So are you just putting in context or what's your point?
wow that's a big change in the electoral map!
I know I just heard it on Hannity, but thank you for being so nice about it.
@Boskop
These polls aren't worth a lot I have taken 10 Big pinches of salt.
You are too late! already in hock to China, Singapore, and Arab States.
What's actually happening is the US is over leveraged and the economy is collapsing.
So Banks have to de-leverage hence squeeze. First on each other then with car, mortgage, all kinds of financial lending.
How long do you give Michigans car industry?
greg:
You think Hannity is credible? Really? The guy who, when interviewing Bolton, championed the North Korea nuclear agreement and then, when Bolton said the agreement was a mistake, Hannity did a complete 180 and agree with him. He's just a right-wing talking points ass-kisser.
Have any of you read "The Case Against Obama"
Do you listen to Hannity
Insider Advantage has Obama up 10 in Colorado! WOW!
1. On pages 30-31 of his book, Freddoso cites page 124 of Chicago journalist David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007) in characterizing a piece of ethics legislation Obama passed in 1998 as "relatively harmless," and claiming that the bill merely made Obama "look like a reformer." In fact, Mendell wrote something very different from what Freddoso claims. He did not in any way characterize the bill as "harmless," but instead noted that pushing the bill through the state Senate "was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues," and that Obama received opposition from his colleagues regarding the ethics legislation. Mendell further wrote that Obama "worked the issue deliberately and delicately," and that upon its passage, the bill "essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions."
Freddoso writes:
As [Illinois state Sen. Emil] Jones's political godson, and even long before the conversation about the United States Senate, Obama had the privilege of stealing important bills. Other senators had a name for this practice: "bill-jacking." 17
Mendell records that as early as 1998, Jones had already done such favors at the prompting of Obama's liberal friends. Abner Mikva, a former congressman and federal judge, had recommended to Jones that he give Obama a popular piece of legislation barring political fundraising on state property and barring lobbyists and contractors from giving gifts to legislators. The bill had enough loopholes to be relatively harmless, but it was a step in the direction of reform. Jones gave it to Obama. Obama proposed it. It passed, 52-4.18 The "Friends and Family" man, the old ward-heeler, was even capable of making Obama look like a reformer.
From pages 123-124 of Obama:
Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests. The senate's Democratic leader, Emil Jones Jr., a veteran African-American legislator from the South Side, offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit for the do-good persona projected by Obama. Obama was also recommended to Jones by two esteemed Chicago liberals who had taken a liking to him: former U.S. senator Paul Simon and former congressman and federal judge Abner Mikva. Working on the bill was an eye-opening experience for the freshman senator. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. In one private session, a close colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers' inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue deliberately and delicately, and the measure passed the senate by an overwhelming 52-4 vote. "This sets the standard for us, and communicates to a public that is increasingly cynical about Springfield and the General Assembly that we in fact are willing to do the right thing," Obama told reporters immediately after the bill's passage. The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old-school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues, who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious.
Indeed, Freddoso goes on to undermine his dismissive treatment of the legislation, describing it as a "real accomplishment" later in the book. From pages 93-94 of The Case Against Barack Obama:
Obama's reform record is not a complete wash. His most notable accomplishment in Washington was the bill he co-sponsored with Republican senator Tom Coburn, the conservative junior senator from Oklahoma. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 -- also known as "Google for Government" -- helped expose to the sunlight the congressional practice of "earmarking," in which members of Congress direct federal spending to parochial projects -- swimming pools, bridges to nowhere -- that often have no national importance or congressional authorization.63 Coburn and Obama's bill, approved over the objection of some of Capitol Hill's worst porkers, really was a small victory for open government and bipartisanship.
This was a real accomplishment for Obama in the name of reform -- the second such accomplishment of his career after the Illinois ethics law.
2. On page 61, Freddoso claims that "[o]nlookers faint at his [Obama's] speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns," citing a February 18 item called "The Monday Morning Presidential Briefing," by Boston Herald police bureau chief Jessica Van Sack. But while Van Sack did address fainting at Obama rallies, she made no comparison to other campaigns, as Freddoso claims.
Freddoso writes:
There is undoubtedly a religious component to "Obamania." The Reverend Jesse Jackson, himself a former presidential candidate, commented that Obama is running a "theological campaign" -- that "[a]t some point, he took off his arms and grew wings." At the University of Texas, crowds sang "Obama-leluja" at his approach.4 Onlookers faint at his speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns.
From Van Sack's item, which included this graph under the subhead, "Hot Video of the Week":
Attending a Barack Obama rally anytime soon? Don't forget the smelling salts. Obama's enthusiastic young followers are dropping like worshippers at a televangelist mega-sermon, as the video of a string of recent crowd-fainting incidents shows.
3. Freddoso writes on page 83 that Obama "takes all the teeth" out his idea of a "merit-pay program" for teachers by "promising" that "the measure of 'merit' " will be determined "by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions." Freddoso's source for this claim is a July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article on Obama's speech that day to the National Education Association. The article, however, does not say that Obama's merit pay measure will be "chosen by teachers' unions." Rather, the article reported what Obama said in his speech -- that he will work with teachers unions to develop a system.
From page 83 of The Case Against Barack Obama:
Obama has acquired an undeserved reputation for reform in education because he offers mild rhetoric about a merit-pay program for teachers. But he takes all of the teeth out of the idea by promising his allies that the measure of "merit" will not be determined by student achievement -- "arbitrary tests" -- but by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions.15 Obama's merit pay also comes only in exchange for six-figure teacher salaries.
From the July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama today endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers before an audience hostile to the idea, the giant National Education Association, but he softened the blow by telling the union's national assembly that he would not use "arbitrary tests" to link pay to performance.
"I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success," Obama told a crowd of about 9,000 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it too you, I'm going to do it with you."
4. On page 88, Freddoso writes that "Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside '527 groups' who will mercilessly smear him," and quotes a June 20 Washington Post article asserting: "No conservative 527 groups have materialized." As Media Matters noted at the time, the Post article ignored the actions of conservative groups, such as the Vets for Freedom political action committee, which had already launched two Internet ads attacking Obama over the Iraq war. Other outside groups such as Freedom's Watch and the National Campaign Fund PAC had also released ads attacking Obama.
From page 88 of The Case Against Barack Obama:
Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside "527 groups" who will mercilessly smear him. Of [Sen. John] McCain, he said: "[W]e've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
"No conservative 527 groups have materialized," the Washington Post noted.35 But what if they do? And the groups more favorable to Obama -- MoveOn.org and the labor unions, for example -- might lack the resources to compete with those conservative groups, should they materialize. It should be noted that in 2004, the pro-Democrat 527s outspent the pro-Republican 527s $282 million to $111 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.36 As of mid-year 2008, the Democratic 527s had slightly outraised their GOP counterparts, but then when you throw in the labor unions and pro-choice groups, Obama's 527 army is already better funded than McCain's.
5. On page 116, Freddoso addresses Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate, citing a December 20, 2007, New York Times article in claiming that "other Illinois senators say" Obama's 130 "present" votes was an "unusually high" number. In fact, the Times article does not quote any Illinois state senators commenting on the frequency of Obama's "present" votes, nor does it report that other Illinois senators considered the frequency of Obama's "present" votes to be "unusually high." Indeed, while neither the Times nor Freddoso provided substantiation for his claim that Obama had an "unusually high" number of "present" votes, PolitiFact.com quoted Christopher Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois-Springfield, saying of Obama's "present" votes: "Everyone I've spoken to who's familiar with this, including lobbyists and people who are engaged in opposition research, say the number of times he voted present on a proportional basis was probably a little less than average."
Freddoso writes:
If Obama cast many controversial votes in Springfield, he also avoided many controversial votes. An interesting aspect of his career in the state Senate was his habit of voting "present" on controversial legislation instead of voting "yea" or "nay." He did this about 130 times over his eight-year career there, which other Illinois senators say is unusually high.56 As Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report noted, "We aren't talking about a 'present' vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values."
6. On pages 174-175, Freddoso claims that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was one of the Democrats who was "against Obama on this point" -- a reference to the debate over whether a U.S. president should be willing to meet with leaders of North Korea, Iran, and other countries without preconditions. As evidence, Freddoso quotes from Biden's May 18, 2008, appearance on ABC's This Week: "This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer." However, the full context of Biden's quote shows that he actually said that he and Obama agreed, saying that Obama's recent statements on the issue "mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about."
Freddoso writes:
For Clinton, there had to be some preconditions -- how else could such a meeting be in the interest of the United States? There had to [sic] an upside. You don't have to take as hard a line as President Bush, she was arguing, but you can't just have a beer with Kim Jong II after he launched seven missiles in provocation during the summer of 2006.12 He must first show some cooperation -- some substantial sign of good faith -- as a precondition. That is how diplomacy works in the real world.
In the months that followed, Democrats ranging from moderate to liberal generally sided with Clinton and against Obama on this point. Former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee, another young, black superstar in the Democratic Party and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, was one of the moderates. "I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders -- with terrorists rather -- without some conditions. 13
"This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer," said Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the liberal chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
From the May 18 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): So, he's developed that --
BIDEN: I think he has.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- what he needs to know in the nine months on the campaign trail.
BIDEN: I think he's focused on -- what we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly, since then, said he would not negotiate unconditionally -- meaning him sitting down alone, right off the bat, with these leaders. He's talked about his secretary of state, his secretary of defense. As a matter of fact, the statements he's using have mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about.
This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would, within the first year. It implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That's not what he meant. That's not what he has said since then for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think that he's fully capable of understanding what's going -- and put this in context, the policy that Bush has pursued and McCain will continue, has been an abject failure. We are weaker in the Middle East. We are weaker around the world. Terrorism is stronger than it ever was. Iran is closer to a bomb. Just by any measure -- any measure -- what has their policy wrought? A disaster. It's been an absolute disaster.
7. On page 215, Freddoso cites a June 13, 2007 (wrongly identified in the endnotes as a June 13, 2008, article), Chicago Sun-Times article in claiming that a spokesman for Obama and a lawyer for convicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "say it is simply a coincidence" that Obama wrote letters in support of Cottage View Terrace, one of Rezko's housing projects. In fact, the Sun-Times quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton stating that Obama supported Cottage View Terrace "because it was going to help people in his district," and Rezko's attorney saying simply that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project."
Freddoso writes:
In June, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak reported that Obama "wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens."10 The project, Cottage View Terrace, includes ninety-seven apartments. It is a few blocks outside of Obama's state Senate district.
The deal for which Obama helped Rezko get this money also included Obama's old law-firm boss, Allison Davis. He is also a major Obama fundraiser and a developer who has built or renovated 1,500 apartment units in Chicago.11 From the $14.6 million in state funds that Obama requested, the two men would already be expected to profit through their housing business. But Davis and Rezko were also to collect $855,000 of it in "development fees."
Obama's spokesman and Rezko's lawyer say it is simply a coincidence that the senator wrote these letters to help two longtime friends, Davis and Rezko, get millions of dollars.
From the June 13, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times article:
On Tuesday, Bill Burton, press secretary for Obama's presidential campaign, said the letters Obama wrote in support of the development weren't intended as a favor to Rezko or Davis.
"This wasn't done as a favor for anyone," Burton said in a written statement. "It was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project.
"I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago," the statement said. "There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district. ... They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It's a successful project. It's meant a lot to the community, and he's proud to have supported it.''
The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened five years ago at 4801 S. Cottage Grove, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens.
Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project."
8. In addition, as Media Matters documented, in the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso writes that, in challenging the eligibility of signatures his opponents collected to get their names on the ballot of the 1996 Illinois state Senate Democratic primary for the 13th district, Obama threw "all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality." On page 2, however, Freddoso undermines his own claim by quoting a 1996 Chicago Weekend report that some of incumbent Sen. Alice Palmer's signatures were disqualified because the voters who signed lived outside the 13th district -- something more than a mere "technicality."
On page 3, Freddoso reproduces a portion of an April 3, 2007, Chicago Tribune article in which one of Obama's opponents in 1996, Gha-Is Askia, referring to Obama's challenge of the signatures, is quoted as saying: "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" That same article, however, also reported that Askia "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged -- a fact Freddoso did not mention, which undermines his "technicality" allegation.
On page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso cites page 109 of Mendell's Obama, in writing that Palmer "was considered the early favorite in this contest," and "collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline." However, Mendell also wrote on pages 109-110 that "Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures" -- another fact Freddoso omitted.
From page 3 of The Case Against Barack Obama:
One of them was Gha-is Askia. He never had much of a chance of winning anyway, but he had gathered 1,899 signatures, and Team Obama took the time to challenge them as well.6 Askia spoke to the Chicago Tribune in 2007 about it:
"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
From the April 3 Tribune article:
Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said.
From page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama (Mendell citations in bold):
As an incumbent with the backing of the new congressman, Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer was considered the early favorite in this contest.14 She went out and collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline.15 She would still need to defeat Obama and two other Democratic challengers, but as an incumbent with the backing of the popular new congressman, Palmer was the early favorite. Until Obama kept her from running, that is.
From page 109-110 of Mendell's Obama:
So a volunteer for Obama challenged the legality of her petitions, as well as the legality of petitions from several other candidates in the race. As an elections board hearing on the petitions neared, Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures. Many of the voters had printed their names, rather than signing them as the law required.
9. On page xii of the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso claims that Obama's "liberal supporters ... support military strikes within the territory of an American ally without that nation's permission" because "Obama apparently made a slip of the tongue in August of last year and advocated such incursions into Pakistan." Freddoso's source for this was an August 1, 2007, Reuters article on Obama's speech that day at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., in which Obama said:
OBAMA: I understand that [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
You mean that book? Nope, I don't read crap.
Party Affiliation for all states
Rep Dem Ind
Illinois 26.2 35.9 28.9
Indiana 31.1 30.1 28.7
Iowa 26.6 34.1 31.9
Michigan 25.3 34.3 27.9
Minnesota 30.0 33.0 26.5
Ohio 28.5 37.1 26.8
Pennsylvania 34.5 35.9 21.9
Wisconsin 31.1 31.6 26.6
"Obama's tax plan gives a much larger chunk back to the middle and lower class"
you mean his old plan
his new plan gives nothing to anyone
I've heard enough of Hannity. I torture myself now and then but the guy tried to convince the public that Palin knew what the Bush doctrine was. People like that hurt American.
Hannity is a bona fide nutjob.
This guy argued that it was okay for McCain to have numerous affairs since he "spent time in a POW" camp. Ummm, what?
Yeah, that's what I want in a president, when the times get tough, his morals get going.....
Hannity is a tard....a right-wing moron with no brains and even less decency. Fox, in general, is not even considered a legitimate news source. They parrot feces straight from Bush's ass. What a joke.
But they do have some decent shows though......so they have that going for them.......
@Robi - Maybe try a link next time
@Tybo - That's outright misinformation and you should be ashamed.
Robi, nice waste of ban width.
you should request it be removed.
Wrong again TYNO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Tybo:
You mean information completely debunking a poorly-written book? I think not. I'm not a spammer.
justin and liar, perhaps you missed it
Obama stated that if the economy went sour his tax plan would be dumped?
I'd expect an Obamaite to keep up with all his statements, not just the ones they wish to hear.
Tybo:
Show me something that has him saying that. link please.
Robi said
"I torture myself now and then but the guy tried to convince the public that Palin knew what the Bush doctrine was."
ah, that doctrine made up by the media, that varies according to the day of the week.
That one?
Source, Tybo?
so now, wisconsin, minn. and penn are yellow.
Tybo:
I'm an IR major and I've known for some time now what the Bush doctrine is and it has always been that preemptive warfare is ok if there's an credible threat that the US will be attacked by a country in the future. Stop reading talking points. Every single foreign policy major knows the Bush doctrine and McCain knows it as well. Stop being a hack and get educated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNmKat4RX-g
God you're dumb.
The same Bush doctrine Gibson asked about during a Republican debate in January -- and both McCain and Ron Paul answered it correctly.
GIBSON: Congressman Paul, let me ask you, do you agree with the Bush doctrine, or would you change it?
CONG. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is not a minor change; this is huge. This is the first time we, as a nation, accept as our policy that we start the wars. I don't understand this.
GIBSON: Let me just ratchet up the question slightly and ask you if you believe in the Bush doctrine.
Because in September 2002 -- up for years, our foreign policy has been based on the idea that we form alliances, international consensus. We attack -- retaliate if we're attacked.
But in 2002, the president said we have a right to a pre-emptive attack; that we can attack if this country feels threatened. . . . Do you agree with the doctrine, Senator McCain, if you were president, or would you change it?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN,(R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with the doctrine. And I'd also like to give President Bush a little credit, as we have this discussion. Right after 9/11, every expert in the world said there would be another attack on the United States of America. There hasn't been.
The Case Against Obama must be true because Obama is making effort to block it from the public. Now put down your copy/paste button and go read it or please be silient
It is true.
"But he (Obama) has indicated that he may delay any plans to raise taxes if the economy continues to worsen..."
Here is one source from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7529141.stm
http://www.twq.com/03spring/docs/03spring_heisbourg.pdf
http://www.twq.com/03spring/docs/03spring_arend.pdf
Just two scholarly articles found in the Washington Times Quarterly archive when I put in "bush doctrine" in the search engine.
Do you still think it's made up?
I love all the Monday morning quarterbacks the act like they new about The Bush Doc......really now one cares but a bunch of cry babies.
Why isn't Florida yellow?
Way to spew misinformation and then change the subject when called on for a source.
These states have [i]very[/i] bad samples and will not concern anyone who looks at the internals.
Rep Dem Ind
Minnesota 30.0 33.0 26.5
Pennsylvania 34.5 35.9 21.9
Wisconsin 31.1 31.6 26.6
Now about that source...?
Just for clarity's sake, the question to McCain was asked a little earlier in the debate than the one to Ron Paul.
I bet you didn't even read it. My attempt to educate you just a little by not putting a link on the page and have you read the information failed. You want to live in ignorance and that's ok I guess.
The so-called Bush doctrine can be any of four or five "doctrines" according to several journalistic sources.... including the guy who first coined the "phrase" and meaning (Charles Krauthammer).
Greg:
IR scholars (which turn out to be foreign policy advisers in the future) DO know what the Bush doctrine is. This wasn't news to me except that Palin had no idea what the hell it was. The fact that you don't know doesn't mean it's irrelevant. The number of right-wing idiots on this forum astound me.
Robi.. it is about time you quit calling other posters names (e.g. "dumb") because they do not fall in lockstep with your ideas. I think you are just proving yourself to be a "smarty pants."
Minnesota 30.0 33.0 26.5
Pennsylvania 34.5 35.9 21.9
Wisconsin 31.1 31.6 26.6
Wooooooooo
If they out poll dems. in these states repubs. must b ewinning by a big margin.
KipTin:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
GOD!
There is no misunderstanding what the Bush doctrine is! They wouldn't call it that if there were 4 of them!
This is not an ambiguous thing. When I watched the interview, I thought she could answer it cause I could and every IR major in my college and probably decent foreign policy major around the nation could. This wasn't ambiguous and if she thought so then that is BAD.
Once again, the average Joe should not be running the white house or be the back-up. This isn't ambiguous so STOP MAKING EXCUSES.
Robi do you have a job.
RObi,,, which bush doctrine?
there's half a dozen versions out there.
you really don't know that??.
Thanks KipTin for providing a source re Obama and his ever changing policies on taxes.
Greg:
I'm a senior Poli Sci IR major.
People who know foreign policy know what the Bush doctrine is. Look at my links that I sent and you will see that there isn't confusion about it. The Bush Doctrine is not ambiguous. Stop making crap up.
I bet Sarah knows that we have 50 states
is a major a job
"There is no misunderstanding what the Bush doctrine is! They wouldn't call it that if there were 4 of them!
This is not an ambiguous thing. "
ah, something else you are wrong on Robi
September 20, 2001
PETER JENNINGS: . . . Claire, the president said at one point, 'From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.' Should we be taking that as the Bush doctrine? CLAIRE SHIPMAN reporting: I think so, Peter,
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: The president in his speech last night, very forceful. Four out of five Americans watched it. Everybody gathered around the television set last night. The president issued a series of demands to the Taliban, already rejected. We'll get to that in a moment. He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated.
September 21, 2001
CHARLIE GIBSON: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. People were looking for a Bush Doctrine. They may have found it when he said the war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped or defeated. That's pretty broad. Broader than you expected?
December 9, 2001
GEORGE WILL: The Bush doctrine holds that anyone who governs a territory is complicit in any terrorism that issues from that territory. That covers the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Second, the war on terrorism is indivisible, it's part of the Bush doctrine.
December 11, 2001
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Two years ago, September 1999, Bush gave his first speech when he was running about terrorism. And his first--had the first explanation of the Bush doctrine, that if you harbor a terrorist, you're going to be attacked. The Bush White House is putting this out, saying it shows that Bush was very prescient, but that was only one speech given in the campaign.
January 28, 2002
BOB WOODWARD: This is now the Bush Doctrine . . . , namely that if we're attacked by terrorists, we will not just go after those terrorists but the countries or the people who harbor them.
January 29, 2002
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It was striking and significant that the president really expanded the Bush doctrine. If a nation builds a weapon of mass destruction--Iraq, Iran or North Korea--we will reserve the right to take out those weapons even if we're not attacked or even if there's not a threat.
March 19, 2004
TERRY MORAN: That was the Bush doctrine we just heard. On this one-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush offered a very broad justification of American leadership in the world under him since 9/11. Not just since one year in Iraq. For American voters as an argument that the country is safer, but more as you point out, for the world, which has been divided by his leadership, that Iraq is knit, in his mind, very firmly into that war on terrorism. One omission which I believe will be noted around the world, he made no mention of the role of multilateral institutions, the UN and others, in this fight against terrorism. In his mind, it's clear it's American leadership with others following along.
May 7, 2006
GEORGE WILL: Now the argument from the right is the CIA is a rogue agent because it has not subscribed to the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine being that American security depends on the spread of democracy and we know how to do that. The trouble is, Negroponte, who is considered by some of these conservatives the villain here and an enemy of the Bush doctrine is the choice of Bush, which makes Bush an insufficient subscriber to the Bush doctrine.
Anyone with a Nexis account can find far more where that came from. Preemptive war; American unilateralism; the overthrow of regimes that harbor and abet terrorists--all of these things and more have been described as the "Bush Doctrine."
I think there is something to be said on both sides regarding the Bush Doctrine issue. It's true that the term "Bush Doctrine" can refer to several foreign policy positions, and Gibson should have clarified what he meant. OTOH "his [Bush's] worldview" is not one of the correct answers.
Muslins here in the US commonly say 57 instead of 50. I can't blame him for that
Everyone:
This is a BIG foreign policy issue and it's ok if you weren't aware of what the Bush doctrine is. But don't buy into this crap that there's some ambiguity between this doctrine and some "other" bush doctrines.
If that were the cases then the foreign policy specialists would just call it the "Bush Doctrine". The point is Palin is a heartbeat away (common line) from becoming president and we need someone who knows their stuff. And the Bush doctrine is BASIC. VERY VERY BASIC!
It's the main reason we went to war with Iraq. And to not know what the main reason is shows how horrible her knowledge is at the most fundamental principles of foreign policy.
The average person doesn't need to know what it is, but this isn't an average job.
Robi said
"I'm a senior Poli Sci IR major"
that explains it... you think you know everything.. most people by your age realize they don't.
You're wrong.
**sigh**
Foreign policy journals don't diverge off the definition:
http://www.twq.com/SearchCollection/SearchAction.cfm
That is the link for the search results "bush doctrine"
Nothing besides what Gibson asked.
Major Robi Student,
Here is your next copy/paste school assignment. Research Jimmy Carter Ecom. and dare to show anyone how it differs from Balack Obams. Now hurry along.
Dang, half the map just turned yellow. Is it really that close in that many states, or is the polling just so "all over the place" that we can't be sure what's really going on?
Robi
I will give ou a true life recreation of the Carter years when you come back. Bring some tissues because you are gonna cry.
Tybo:
Professors who are former foreign policy advisers and who become foreign policy advisers later on are the ones teaching us the material. If they know what the Bush Doctrine is, then I think they know more than you.
I love it: "he thinks he's all smarter because he goes to college".
If I know what the Bush doctrine is because part of the US foreign policy course I took discussed it in great depth, I don't see how that makes me wrong.
greg: I'm not an economist so stay on my topic or don't address me.
Sarah Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was and anybody who knows a little foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is. She doesn't know crap about foreign policy.
Here's the fun thing. Even if you agree/disagree on whether there are multiple versions of the Bush Doctrine, McCain's aides said that they were going to review past Gibson interviews as part of Palin's preparation for the interview. So, did they not see his question to McCain during the January debate?
Robi, .
when presented with a list of how different people define the doctrine, you give a bad link, then praise your professors.
It must be nice to be so young.
You are going to have ride for the next 5-10 years. I wish you well.
@Robi
Ignore the republican residents
Bush Doctrine = Pre-emptive strikes.
Every body else in the world understands it as that.
btw, ROBI, you forgot to check to see if you link worked, before you posted.
try the preview button next time.
Apparently their foreign policy advice is not in demand since they are teaching and not working.
thoughtful..
how obama like--- you said:
"ignore the facts, listen to me"
so then you disagree with George Will that the bush doctrine means the spread of democracy in order to spread American POwer?
your bush doctrine is just the simple "pre-emptive strikes? agaisnt who? terrorist? nuclear nations? nations hiding terrorist?
all? not all, but some? will we attack Germany with their hiding terrorists?
what's the doctrine say?
Something went wrong with the link so I'll just give you some of the articles on the site:
http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_steinberg.pdf
http://www.twq.com/03spring/docs/03spring_ellis.pdf
There are 2 links to 2 different articles that were on the same page.
The rest are not different "Bush doctrines". You could go to the main site off of the bad link and do the search yourself but I guess that was too much for you to handle.
I do praise my professors because the do know what they're talking about. It never ceases to amaze me how people forget that professors are also advisers to the president (former and future) and that link is just a scholarly journal that I use for other research and the search results can't be linked I guess.
It's ok if you don't understand the Bush doctrine but don't say I don't because I do.
Stop making excuses. She didn't know what it was.
FOX GETS PALIN INTERVIEW BUMP!
CABLE RACE, WED, SEPT 17
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 4,921,000
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,839,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 3,561,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,184,000
FOXNEWS HUME 2,108,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,854,000
CNN COOPER 1,719,000
MSNBC RACHEL MADDOW 1,716,000
CNN KING 1,646,000
MSNBC HARBALL 1,145,000
List of things conservatives don't care about.
1 troopergate
2 teen preg.
3 bridge to whatever
4 bush doc.
Seriously!
Major Robi
Since you are a senior and you still don't have at least some understanding on how Jimmy Carter destroyed the country I going to have to give you an F. Hope you are paying your own tuition.
greg:
Yes you're really informed. Forgive me for my ignorance. You who listen to Hannity. Don't make me laugh. I'm done with you.
Poor Disgraced Demoted Tingly Leg Chris Matthews is last again. Maybe someone would watch his show if he would let other people talk and stop trying to put words in people's mouth.
But Greg, if you're giving out college grades then you must be a professor, and if you're a professor then you must be completely ignorant of everything outside your ivory tower (I heard that on Bill O'Reilly, so it must be true), ergo, the fact that you gave Robi an F means that he must really know what he's talking about!!!
Robi, poor you. you linked to the CSIS as proof!
my God! How young are you?
serponce
do you remember the Jimmy Carter years
If you are too young to remember the Jimmy Carter years then you should do yourself a favor and do some research and actually learn something useful instead of being a know it all kid that really knows nothing.
You will be able to understand what an Obama presidency would be like because, Obama's econ. plan is identical to Obamas. Do yourself the favor.
sorry .....identical to Carters econ plan
Alas, I am too young to remember the Carter years. How are Carter's and Obama's plans similar? I must have missed when Obama said he wanted to start gas rations...
These polls consistently over-sampled men--which favors McCain.
The IA poll is the most doubtful. It has already been commented that the IA poll over-sampled Republicans. Other unlikely internals include:
1) a 49%/51% male-female split (in 2004, the spilt was about 46%/54% male-female);
2) an 11% sample of 18-29 year olds (who made up 17% of IA's vote in 2004).
Despite these things, in the raw vote Obama finished a few votes ahead.
This WI poll:
50% men / 50% women
18-29: 12%
African-Americans: 3%
2004 WI exit poll:
47% men / 53% women
18-29: 20%
African-Americans: 5%
This IN poll:
African-Americans: less than 5%
2004 exit poll:
African-Americans: 7%
The 2006 census puts IN's African-American population at 9%.
oops, look like it is game over for Mccain and the helicopter hunter.
TOASTED!!
Looks like Americans are finally seeing the farce that is Palin. Rats, I was hoping the markets went down even more for Obama on intrade so I could make some more money. Oh well.
Hey, all you retardlican trolls - mind going to intrade and betting on your most amazing ticket? Please? Daddy needs a brand new car.
C'mon, just put a little bit of money on your guy - you guys sure spew a lot of BS on these boards - why not back it up? Or do YOU not even believe half the garbage you write on here????
This MI poll:
52% male / 48% female
African-Americans: 8%
2004 MI exit poll:
49% male / 51% female
African-Americans: 13%
This MN poll (in which Obama leads by 2.8%--rounding down made it 2%):
50% male / 50% female
18-29: 13%
2004 MN exit poll:
48% male / 52% female
18-29: 20%
This OH poll:
49% male / 51% female
African-Americans: less than 7%
2004 OH exit poll:
47% male / 53% female
African-Americans: 10%
The 2006 census puts OH's African-American population at 12%.
I did not look at all the PDF files, but the AA % looked low for MI and PA.
This PA poll:
50% male / 50% female
African-Americans: 5%
2004 PA exit poll:
47% male / 53% female
African-Americans: 13%
Curious numbers.
A lot of these states (OH, MI, WI, and I think IN) don't track party affiliation. MN and WI have same day registration. PA has an increase of registered Democratss and a DECREASE in registered Republicans (partly because the Democratic primary was still competitive). I'm not sure what the numbers from IA are like, but there are noticably more registered Democrats than registered Republicans.
It should be worth noting that CO, FL, NV, and NC continue to see significantly more people registering as Democrats than Republicans.
These samples are badly skewed in some cases. Severe under-representation of African Americans in PA, MI and to a lesser extent OH. For example, PA sample is only 5% AA vs. 13% in 2004 PA exit poll. National sample has only 9% AA and 3% Hispanic vs. 11% and 7% in 2004 national exit poll. If you weight AA's and Hispanics up to where they probably should be, Obama would have comfortable lead in PA and MI, slightly bigger lead in OH, and lead by 3-4 points in national suyrvey vs. 1 here.
in my opinion, at the end of the day, obama isnt going to win indiana or florida or montana... but mccain isnt going to win PA or MI or Michigan or Iowa for that matter. ohio is going to be a close call. the difference between this year and 04 is that obama has new mexico in his pocket at this point, and hes got a great shot at winning colorado. as long as he wins those states, it may all come down to tiny little new hampshire.im waiting to see how states look next week because a lot of these polls are still a little behind.
What faithhopelove, Alan Abramowitz and others have said:
The demographics in these polls are skewed against Obama - too few 18-29, more men, fewer African-Americans (important only for some states).
Professor Franklin's got some explaining to do...
These polls are laughable. They didnt even bother publishing the National numbers
78.8% white
9.9% black
2.8% hispanic!!
Yeah right in a Limbaugh/Dobbs fantasy world maybe.
Less than 29= 11% vs 21% in 2004
Barack obama has more facebook friends than that!
Mr. Franklin- Please explain why you expect a huge increase in the older white male turnout...
You can take CO off the board for gramps.
Looks like VA is next.
Yikes, today mccain said that spain was in latin america. Who is dumber, mccain or palin? Good God. No wonder mccain finished 894 out of 899 students in his class.
And then you have the helicopter hunter - Palin. Or as she is more commonly know, Palyin'.
This genius took 6 years to get a 4 year degree - bouncing around all over the place and finally getting a degree from the university of Idaho. Yes, Idaho, which is slightly below your local juco. God help us all if these two dimwits get into the white house. They make bush look like a member of mensa.
The one thing that jumps at me is the fact that McCain is tied with Obama in PA, MN, IA and only down four in Michigan and only down 1 in Wisconsin. These are 5 BLUE STATES for Christ's sakes!!! Obama loses PA it's over unless he can steal VA and CO! If he loses Michigan it's over as well because OH will most likely go for McCain. He would have to upset McCain in VA and NH to make up for it. If he loses MN and Wisconsin it's also over...unless he can hold on to PA and MI.
Somewhere right now John McCain must be have the biggest grin on his face!
The samples were tiny in this survey in each state if total sample size was a mere 1100 or so.
But the consistency of the skew is more than baffling; it's troubling. Here is another chart and comments of johnnygun from dailykos
GENDER (thanks to johnnygun from dailykos for charts; all comments are mine
Male/Female Ratios
Illinois – 49.6/50.4
Indiana – 48.4/51.6
Iowa – 48.6/51.4
Michigan – 51.8/48.2
Minnesota – 49.7/50.3
Ohio – 50.9-49.1
Pennsylvania – 50.1/49.9
Wisconsin – 49.8/50.2
Actual M/F ration in 2004 Presidential cycle:
46.5/53.5
While there may be actual differences in this ratio in different states the average for all 10 should be in this range and....it's not even close.
Avg. Gender Split in Big 10 Poll
49.9/50.1
I estimate that Obama lost about .5% region-wide through this obvious fail, based on women for O +8 and men for McCain +7.
RACE
African American Respondents vs. % of Population
Illinois – 10.0% / 15.0% (2.4% loss for Obama)
Indiana – 4.8% / 8.9% (O -2%)
Iowa – 0.9% / 2.5%(O -.75%)
Michigan – 8.4% / 14.3% (O -3%)
Minnesota – 1.9% / 4.5% (O -1.3)
Ohio – 6.7% / 12.0% (O -2.75)
Pennsylvania – 5.0% / 10.7% (O -3)
Wisconsin – Not listed
Age is similarly skewed like crazy against younger demographic in a manner not reflective of actual voting patterns.
Repub/Dem party ID also low and 18-29 demo is underrepresented....need I go on?
"Iowa and Pennsylvania will not flip red this year. McCain's efforts there are worthless."
Ditto Wisconsin. I'd bet my mortgage (sic).
first time poll from this group and nothing i've seen in the internals gives them much credibility IMO--
the party affiliation just seem wack for a number of states..
from an earlier post:
It's been clear to liberal bloggers that Palin is an ignoramus on foreign policy.
Funny, I've thought the same thing about Obama.
Which of course leads back to the general question of experience, to wit: if you want capable, tested foreign policy experience who would you vote for, Obama or McCain?
I live in Pennsylvania and the one thing you liberal democrats (I am a moderate democrat who will vote McCain/Palin) don't understand is the resentment that still exists toward Obama and the way he referred to the small town people in the state. You may think that this is all blown over..if that's the case, you are all sadly mistaken. Sure, Obama will take Philadelphia and some of the suburbs around it, but not all of them. Bucks County is predominantly white, with lots of Hockey moms!
Pittsburgh and its suburbs are very conservative, and so are the Northern and Western parts of the state. Hillary beat him here by 10 points and he outspent her 4-1! You guys are in for a shock on Nov. 4th. I predict McCain wins the stae by 4-5 points...guaranteed!
All this means Obama must do the impossible and steal not only Virginia, but Colorado and another Western state as well in order to make up for PA. You can also forget about Ohio..he's not winning it! So you see, all this hoopla about Obama being up or down in the polls don't matter if he doesn't hold PA, period!
Interesting University Study. Closer results than normal for Iowa. 600 Respondents. Will be interesting to see the data and results after their TV program.
Posted on September 18, 2008 2:38 PM