Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 42, McCain 39 (YouGov-09/1-3)

Topics: PHome

Economist /
YouGov-Economist
9/1-3/08; 1,000 Adults, 3%
Mode: Internet

National
Obama 42, McCain 39
(8/26: Obama 41, McCain 36)

 

Comments
Robi:

I want to try something. I'll do it too. For everyone who is going to pull out a statistic or something they call a fact, I want a link to a document or something that will show that what you said is true. It might be tiresome but it's better than lying like some people tend to do here. Opinions are fine, but if you're going to call something a fact or make a statement that needs facts, SHOW US THE FACTS!!!!

And no more "media bias" talk cause proclamations prove nothing. Right-wing, left-wing, argue facts not what you think is bias or not and if you think they're wrong or dishonest like when Stillow talked about the average unemployment rate, don't call them names or say it's left wing or right wing spin or whatever excuses you have. SHOW FACTS TO COUNTER THEIR CLAIM!!! If you can't then don't make a contribution cause from now on, I will not consider a "fact" credible until I see a source for it.

There's too much crap and false "facts" and media bias accusations and that gets us nowhere. If you think that our statements are bias or spin, prove it with facts and not proclamations.

GOD!!!!!

____________________

Robi:

Is this poll similar to Zogby?

____________________

Guailo:

Bickering over the national polls really doesn't mean squat. Electoral college, hello?

Just look at the projected numbers. Obama has more money, more resources, more people on the ground in all of the battleground states. His grassroots capacity dwarfs McSame's.

You neocon nuts can jabber on all you want about the tide is changing in the national polls etc etc., but quite frankly they don't matter. There is no way McCain will recuperate the deficits he is in in Penn, Mich, Minn, Wisc. All Obama has to do is carry a couple of battleground states and IT IS OVER.

And as you well know, his grassroots operations and enthusiasm dominate McSame...

The Fat Lady Has Sung.

____________________

Robi:

OK...I know I'm sounding like a school teacher but name calling won't get your point across.

Give facts Guailo (even though I think what you would reference).

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

So he is still in the 30's. Hopefully Palin can move him close to 45% - otherwise it's over.

____________________

Robi:

I think this poll is an outlier. It's just too close to the election to have people polling nationally in the 30s.

____________________

freedomreigns:

There is no way both candidates are below 45. How the heck did they get so many undicideds? Add 5-7 to each candidate and you are probably on the right track

____________________

dennisbest:

Am I reading the tabs correctly? 14% of African Americans are undecided? I don't think so.

____________________

voteforamerica:

Can Sarah Palin Think?

One's initial response to this question is: of course; but will the country blindly accept the default position of intelligence to a potential President, especially after the current President's intelligence. I am straight up questioning Sarah Palin's competence. In her eight days on the national stage she has demonstrated no capability for logical thought. At her introduction last Friday (8/29) she regurgitated a speech written by somebody else. The following weekend in Pennsylvania she essentially repeated the same speech. Palin's third and most recent public appearance was her acceptance speech at the RNC in St. Paul. Here she gave yet another speech written by somebody else, but this time it was also written for somebody else....

____________________

Robi:

VFA:

please, please don't...no more...STOP

____________________

boskop:

@voteamerica
well i am glad that someone is so smart!

perhaps you might want to download the obama interview with oreilly in which obama so wisely discusses muslim behavior in the key countries of strife.

he leans forward, uses his deeper cadences and explains to us the dumb folk why al qaeda could not be a threat via iran because it is a sunni organization. holy cow, that simple!!

there are such things as simplistic answers and then again such things as simpletons. obama showed he is the latter.

for years iran the land of nasty shias has been in bed with syria the nasty sunnis. hezbollah is their joint band of police heavies to enforce whatever they damn please get enforced.

but if you think obama has a clue about foreign policy then you with all your smarts and your candidate need to at least wiki more often.

honestly, his knowledge would grow immensely forget about reading in depth books on the subject...let him just start with wikipedia.

you too, smartypants!! give it a go why not??

____________________

Robi:

boskop:

VFA was bad but you are worse. Try to be better than that. Obama did a great job in the interview with O'Reilly and if you think O'Reilly would let Obama talk for more than 1 minute at a time, then you're mistaken.

Obama understands the nuances in policy but don't talk to me about Obama not understanding the differences between Suni and Shia when McCain is way worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfM7z0-Vdg

____________________

player:

I just found out that Rasmussen uses an automated computer dialing system with their surveys. This makes their polls completely random. I would think that this lends more credibility to their polls. A lot of pollsters are selective especially in states where large concentrations of voters of various persuasions live within the same radius. This method tends to give biased results favoring one party or another.

However, I don't know how much credibility we can lend to any pollster this year. I read today that in the Michigan primary last year, polls showed that the continuation of affirmative action that was on the ballot was going to pass by a large margin. The exit polls also showed that it was going to pass. However, it failed by a large margin; this is the Bradley effect. People say they are going to vote one way and then vote another. They also fib about how they voted.

____________________

Robi:

If you looked at the pollster website for the democratic primaries and looked at which state was carried by whom, you would find a very accurate portrayal of what happened.

The only trend I noticed that was different obviously was that, when the elections happened, if a candidate lead 50-45 in polls, the election result would be twice the points because there are no undecideds in the later primaries.

____________________

boskop:

please. this is spin. just stick to the damn facts buddy.

he doesnt get the dynamics and neither do you.
take another look and then tell me he didnt
say that iran is really not the big deal because it's shia and al qaeda is sunni.

then review your most recent history like the
lebanese imbroglio led by nasrallah.

the bombs were trafficked through syria and they share hezbollah. they share a long, very long history of mutual armament and intervention.

you show such an immense lack of knowledge you best take your candidate and his nano sized compendium of facts to the local kids library and take out a book or two.

____________________

thoughtful:

Boskop

You have that wrong. Alqaeda is an outlaw organization in Iran. This will appeal to you any one convicted of membership - execution!

____________________

Robi:

boskop:

show me your sources based on your argument.

____________________

Robi:

I want to try something. I'll do it too. For everyone who is going to pull out a statistic or something they call a fact, I want a link to a document or something that will show that what you said is true. It might be tiresome but it's better than lying like some people tend to do here. Opinions are fine, but if you're going to call something a fact or make a statement that needs facts, SHOW US THE FACTS!!!!

And no more "media bias" talk cause proclamations prove nothing. Right-wing, left-wing, argue facts not what you think is bias or not and if you think they're wrong or dishonest like when Stillow talked about the average unemployment rate, don't call them names or say it's left wing or right wing spin or whatever excuses you have. SHOW FACTS TO COUNTER THEIR CLAIM!!! If you can't then don't make a contribution cause from now on, I will not consider a "fact" credible until I see a source for it.

There's too much crap and false "facts" and media bias accusations and that gets us nowhere. If you think that our statements are bias or spin, prove it with facts and not proclamations.

____________________

Robi:

Show me Obama saying Iran isn't that important.

____________________

thoughtful:

Robi

you are going to end up on your own! That's a fact!

____________________

Robi:

thoughtful:

wait which part?

And also, what you or I call fact, marctx, stillow, and player obviously don't. That's why I'm saying people should show their sources so people can't just say "that's not true"

____________________

boskop:

@thoughful, @robi
sunnis are baathists. sometimes. sunnis live in most middle eastern states. sunnis dominate in syria. sunnis are al qaeda ...sometimes.

the syrians work with the iranians. you over simplify. the nexus is complex. iran supplies syria which supplies hezbollah in lebanon.
hezbollah was invented in iran. some debate that. but it's pretty much true.

hezbollah was coopted by the palestinians. palestinians are sunni.

not that simple as you can see.

their mutual enemy ,,israel obfuscates the lines drawn by simplistic comments as the above.

obama is dangerous for thinking it is this easy. you are dangerous for thinking he is that smart.

____________________

Robi:

Show me a speech or an interview where Obama said that the situation was simple.

Also show me something that proves what you are saying about the complex network.

You are putting words in my mouth and most certainly in Obama's. Show me SOURCES. If you can't then stop talking about this subject.

____________________

Robi:

Everyone:

obviously things we find as obvious facts don't seem to match with each other. So when I ask for sources, I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm just saying show the sources so people can't say "you're wrong" even though you're telling them the sky is blue

____________________

thoughtful:

Listen those people are my buddies I don't agree with their views, they don't with mine. I don't have a problem with them.

I agree with them about a lot of the liberal trolls, I am sure there is a 5th Column type of disinformation unit.

If what these guys say is so obviously factually incorrect. then put it to them.

You know I respect people who care, Ok theiir views are extreme so our mine!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bookshop

I'm still waiting for you to put a single fact forward. All you have is false accusations, spin and misunderstandings.

Who is spoon-feeding you all this right wing crap?

Your dinner: http://www.mattmatarazzo.com/images/elephant-****.jpg

____________________

pion:

To Boskop: you wrote

"for years iran the land of nasty shias has been in bed with syria the nasty sunnis."

You also wrote:

"you show such an immense lack of knowledge you best take your candidate and his nano sized compendium of facts to the local kids library and take out a book or two"

For someone so comfortable sending people to "the local kids library", perhaps you should be aware that the Assads (the ruling family of Syria) are actually Alawites---a Shi'ite sect.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

And let me ask you one simple question. Please answer it for everyone here as I am sure they are all curious.

If you think the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims is so important (which it is) why are you supporting a person that does not know the difference between the two?

Please, tell us. Is your candidate senile or just plain stupid?

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bogstop

please, we're all waiting. Why are you supporting a person that does not know the difference between a Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim?

Please, tell us.

____________________

boskop:

@robi
if this commentary of and by obama is new to you then i am sorry. you can download oreilly, where obama tries to back off his previous comments but then sticks his big size 13 foot in his mouth.

i havent the time nor the inclination to have some stranger come in and tell me to find articles for them. isnt that your job?

it is basically understood that people on this site are knowledgeable and can do this themselves.

so you can take your fiat and...

if you want a lesson, take a course. or pay me and i'll teach you. nope sorry, i have a full time job and some.

your ranting belies your intellectual insecurity. many of us, those who disagree with me like thoughtful are rather savvy as are most who come to play in this sandbox.

so fill up your mental tank and come back and joust! see ya soon...

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bugmop

Please, tell us. Why are you supporting a person that does not know the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni?

"it is basically understood that people on this site are knowledgeable"

That was before you showed up and lowered the average.

____________________

boskop:

@kerchdavis

anyone can make a slip. last i heard we had 57 states and someone didnt know who the president of russia was.

should i go on?

____________________

thoughtful:

Boskop

I am with you, it is not that simple!

Wasabi Sunni You know there are different types of Sunni, indeed Shias, indeed other sects completely!

You know its like Protestants and Catholics Conformist and Non-Conformists look at all the Christian branches.

Is there enmity between the Saudis and Iranians? Of course there is!

____________________

Robi:

I watched the O'Reilly interview so if you think Obama is backing off of Iran, give me a speech he gave or something we wrote or something FROM HIM that proves he doesn't think Iran is important.

____________________

brambster:

Let's try this again...

Would you guys please all stop arguing with Stillow, Boskop, Player, MarcTX, and every other radical nut. Nothing at all is being learned from this and it's drowning out legitimate discussion.

Arguing with a radical nut gets you no where. Do you think these people are going to change their minds? How many times do they have to bring up Hitler for you to understand that???

STOP!!!
STOP!!!
STOP!!!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

It's hard to find sources for stuff you make up.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

sorry, brambster :(

____________________

Robi:

OK I will ignore them...I swear they're like alcoholism...I want to stop it but I keep on going cause it's so fun and easy...I'll try to stop again.

____________________

boskop:

@thoughtful
you see guys, though we totally disagree we understand that NOTHING is that simple.

even thoughtful knows i cant stand some mccain stuff. but shia sunni rifts are so complex and so new to us that the first place for you to take a look is the work of bernard lewis.

start there.

then you can ramp it up. read some new books on the iranian blogging underground. read the history of islam, it is really fascinating and totally human and totally lame like every other territorial/religio imperative.

then come back and we'll chat.

tally ho, and hip hip as they say in thoughtful's home:>)

adios as they say in mine.

____________________

pion:

To Robi:

W/r to giving references, it would be a good idea if there was a consequence to spouting rubbish on this website. Unfortunately this is not the case as I could tell after spending a few minutes reading the posts from Boksop who is probably the most clueless. It was a complete waste of time to read these posts, but I wanted to correct what was said about "Syria being ruled by the Sunnis"

____________________

Ciccina:

@ brambster, lol. You are right, of course.

@ Robi, I agree with your general point about using links to actual examples of the things we (including me) claim.

Also, randomly pasting entire articles, unrelated to the topic at hand no less, should be seriously off limits. No more spamming.

Poor Mark or his staff have to waste their time cleaning up these messes. Considering all the good they do in sharing their expertise they really shouldn't have to worry about this.

____________________

boskop:

@pion

syria is mostly sunni. that is what i said.

____________________

pion:

To Boksop:

No, you also said: "sunnis dominate in syria"

____________________

boskop:

@obamites

you cannot get a purview of the sunni shia hezbollah baath wadi etc commingling and internecine bickery by quickly reading wikipedia between posts. which you are clearly doing.

but at least you are more knowledgeable now than you were at the beginning of this thread.

so congrats!!!

____________________

boskop:

@pion

of course, they make up over 75% of the population. if you know another term to describe BIG MAJORITY then by all means enlighten us!!

____________________

Robi:

Yeah....so I definitely think this poll is off lol.

____________________

boskop:

@robi..caves!!!

like i am surprised you couldnt handle the mental heat.
neither can your guy.

____________________

ncc81701:

There is a lot of talk about what kind of Muslims live where, but that kind of talk is nothing more than a distraction to the question at hand. Is Iran working with Al-Qeada? Up to this point in time there has been no one here nor anywhere that has provided any tangible evidence that Iran is actively working with Al-Qaeda. I find this implicit incrimination similar to the tactics and strategies used to convince the American public that there were WMDs in Iraq and that we should authorize the administration to invade Iraq a 2nd time. Iran might be a threat (and a grave one with Nukes), but I'll need some evidence before making the leap that they are working hand in hand with Bin Laden. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Having watched the first part of O'reilly's interview of Obama I thought that:
-Obama weaseled out a bit on admitting that he was wrong about the surge
-Obama showed that he understand the difference between what is a real threat to the United States and what is a potential threat to the United States.
-Obama showed that at the minimum he will at least try to use some diplomacy before using our military.

____________________

Robi:

boskop:

What do you read for your views on foreign policy?

____________________

pion:

To ncc81701 (cool name BTW):

I agree with your three thoughts. I find that at times, Obama is a bit too conciliatory. I'm impressed with his willingness to deal with someone like O'Reilly. BTW, O'Reilly was pretty well behaved---I wonder if he secretly craves respectability.

____________________

player:

@Bamster:
A radical nut huh?

____________________

boskop:

bin laden hooking up with iran? not likely.

at least not directly.

btw: if obama were so dead on about the war, and btw so were most people who saw that lame presentation by colin powell at the UN...then why come and how so didn't he hammer it to death except for that one speech in october 2002 which he is looping into his dogma like a chinese trying to lip sync edith piaf. take after take after take.

expediency. that's why not.

____________________

Robi:

Player:

No offense but you were trying to argue that everything this site is about, which I have found to be very credible because it was able to predict the primaries very well, to not be credible because people won't vote for him in secret. I've heard that before...but where?

____________________

Robi:

Boskop:

what do you read for your foreign policy information?

____________________

boskop:

@robi
i dont read foreign policy. i read facts. history. religion.

____________________

pion:

To Brambster:

I only read one post by Player---it did not strike me as the post of a radical nut job.

____________________

pion:

Boskop: "i dont read foreign policy. i read facts. history. religion."

I'm in awe.

____________________

Robi:
____________________

Robi:


http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1743-8586&site=1

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/jcp/

As well as the Economist.

There is a lot out there and there are a lot of different opinions. People like the ones who write in these journals (except for the economist I believe) are in charge of foreign policy and are important advisers.

This isn't abstract, it's real life. I should know, it's my field after all.

____________________

Robi:

http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/?gclid=CLm1x7H8-pMCFQEGQQodERPuVA

Sorry I forgot about the multiple link rule so I might have copies of these posts

____________________

zotz:


The Syrians have a secular government dominated by the socialist Baath party.
I can't believe all this arguing over a simple fact that any one of you look up with a two minute Google search. And Kerrchdavis, making fun of someone's moniker is childish. Can we have more adult behavior here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4439294.stm
Mr Assad inherited the presidency in 2000 from his father who ruled with an iron grip for three decades.
A peasant's son, Hafez al-Assad worked his way up through the ranks of the air force and the socialist Baath party.
In the process, he lifted members of his own Alawite minority - like Mr Kanaan - from the confines of poor, rural Syria to the realms of power. Alawites worry they are the ones that are going to eat all the revenge and discrimination

Joshua Landis
Alawites are a secretive off-shoot of Shia Islam who revere Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad.

They are regarded as heretics by many Muslims, especially orthodox Sunnis, and have faced centuries of discrimination.

In a country with a 75% Sunni population, only a strongman like Hafez al-Assad could have imposed himself as an Alawite president - with the help of the Baath party.

"All the minorities in the country embraced the Baath party, a pan-Arab socialist party," explains Joshua Landis, a US expert on Syria who is married to an Alawite.
It offered a secular vision of Syria that would dismantle very serious religious splits."

____________________

Robi:

I recommend the Washington Times Quarterly especially. It's very good. But all of them are very informative. It doesn't hurt to know policy especially when that's a major part of the candidate.

____________________

Robi:

zotz:

I'm happy

____________________

player:

@Robi:
Its called the Bradley effect. Its what happened in the New Hampshire primary where the polls said that Obama was going to win big time but HRC won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

____________________

Robi:

Player I'm aware. I'm not saying the effect is made up. I'm saying that the application isn't right because the primaries have shown since then that the pollster.com trend lines are fairly accurate. According to your logic of the Bradley effect, Obama wouldn't have won the primaries.

____________________

ncc81701:

@pion:
Fellow Star Trek fan I see :)

@Boskop:

"if obama were so dead on about the war, and btw so were most people who saw that lame presentation by colin powell at the UN...then why come and how so didn't he hammer it to death except for that one speech in october 2002 which he is looping into his dogma like a chinese trying to lip sync edith piaf. take after take after take. "

Honestly, I think the American public (myself included) was sold on the lie that Iraq had WMD. The question of whether Iraq had WMD isn't something that could have been answered by a quick google search. It required intelligence that can only be gathered by agencies like the CIA. Since the public had no access to this kind of information we had to put our trust into what our President was saying because he had access to that kind of information. Putting Colin Powell at the UN was a pretty smooth move since he was probably the most trust worthy person in Bush's Cabinet. Time has shown that that thrust in the Bush administration has been misplaced and thousands of American soldiers paid for it with their lives and thousands more paid for it with their limbs. In hindsight we probably should have listen to Hans Blix to Bush but who (besides the Ultra left) would have believed at the time that the Swedish guy was the one telling the truth and our own leader was the one spreading the lie? IMO, this is probably why the majority of the public was for the war before we were against it ;).

As to why Obama weren't blowing the horn on the Iraq war, if you think about it no one would have cared. I didn't even know who the guy was until mid last year. I've never seen any of his speeches until the beginning of this year, and millions of Americans just found out who he was a week ago. Obama saying he was against the war in 2002 was like your town mayor saying he/she was against the war back in 2002, on one on the national stage would have even heard it.

Having Obama repeating the fact that he was against the war in 2002 every chance he gets is no different than McCain repeating his POW story every chance he gets. They're both candidates and they are both trying to sell themselves.

____________________

hippieCyndi08:

sorry to disappoint you Player....the Bradley Effect would have ended Obama's victory during the Primaries when he won votes from States that never lived near let along voted for a black man, and beat the most known experienced Democrats.

[boskop:syria is mostly sunni. that is what i said.]

Incorrect: Syria is a Secular Shia Baath part (Alawi of the Shia out of 12 Imaams). Sunni only represent less than 40% in the country....in fact the largest Syrian population are Christian and Shia Muslim.

it might help people to argue with fact and educate themselves about the Middle East and the 300 Million who live in it. I know its hard when either side is trying to trash their man's opponent.


____________________

cinnamonape:

Player~ Regarding the random dialing and automated procedure tha Rassmussen uses. While it's true that this might appear to be a better method than targeting areas...it can go awry. Rassmussen uses a post-polling weighting of responses based on the respondants stated Party Affiliation to establish likely voters, for example. So while they may get a "random" assortment of Democratic, Republican and Independant respondants...the mix of these is established by criteria other than actual registration figures for the State at the time.

And I notice that Rassmussen's mix had dropped the Democratic component of the mix just after the DNC, and then increased the Republic component in the soup during the RNC. Interesting!

Other surveys may focus upon lists of registered voters, or zip codes that have certain levels of voting activity, or some complex formulation of age-race-party-and sex to arrive at the mix of who is likely to vote.

____________________

pion:

To Player and Robi:

I'm not sure how accurate the trend lines are (in terms of predictive power), but I do like the fact that pollster.com categorizes their results in terms of confidence levels (95%). There statistical analysis is far superior than what the averages found on realclearpolitics, for example.

____________________

zotz:

ncc81701-
I support Obama because I think he would be more cautious and explore every option before going to war. I think war should be a last resort. Also, he would build alliances so we wouldn't have to take the whole burden by ourselves. MKcCain was a big cheerleader for invading Iraq. He said it would be easy. He said that Afganistan was already won so we didn't have to worry about it.

McCain is reckless and has not shown good judgement inspite of the surge.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Hmmm! The CBS poll shows 42-42 with 16% undecided (or leaning to third party candidates). This poll is only 3% different (42-39) and yet people are saying it is incredible that there can be "so many undecided" two months out from the election?

Perhaps Palin did three things...1) solidified McCain's support with evangelicals and hard conservatives, 2) drove many independents who viewed him as a social moderate into the undecided column, and 3) drove some undecideds - women who felt that the selection of Palin was much worse than other choices- into the Obama camp.

I took the opportunity to listen in on some right-wing talk radio shows today. A lot of the male listeners were talking about how greatMcCain's selection was...because Palin was a "total MILF". Yeah, good reason to vote for McCain-Palin guys! But I suspect these guys were gonna vote for McCain anyways.

____________________

player:

@cinnamonape:
I haven't been able to see the weighting methods of Rasmussen. However, I think that computer random calls takes the human feeling factors out of the polls.

____________________

pion:

To ncc81701:

"In hindsight we probably should have listen to Hans Blix to Bush but who (besides the Ultra left) would have believed at the time that the Swedish guy was the one telling the truth and our own leader was the one spreading the lie"

I have to object to the notion that only the "ultra left" could figure out that Blix was on to something. I listened to Scott Ritter (the chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998) give a very sound argument as to why Saddam was unlikely to have the fabled stockpiles and he was convincing. I think it's fair to say that being informed was also key to being against the war, in contrast to simply having a straight ideological opposition to the invasion.

____________________

player:

@Pion:
I don't know. It seems a reach to put that many polls from some many different weighting methods into a scatter plot with a trend line. There are so many variables to consider. You could do it if all other things were equal.

____________________

Robi:

Player:

I understand your point, but I think the problem is if the random sample happens to be 40% party ID rep and 30% dem and 30% ind. The result could not be reliable. I don't know though. There is an argument for completely random samples being legit.

____________________

pion:

To Player:

Well given the choice of believing an un-weighted average of polls (in some cases taken months apart) versus a weighted least-square trend analysis, I will put my money on the latter. However, I have not seen in detail what pollster.com does so I am not going to defend their method with my life.

____________________

brambster:

@Player

Yes, you are one of the resident loons.

@Pion

Yes, Player is one of the resident loons.

Use the search feature.

____________________

SwingVote:

Boskop,

You are totally wrong. Majority and ruling elite of Syria are Allawi (secular/moderate form of Shiite). They are natural ally of Iran because of religion and a lot of other reasons. Iran hates Al Quaeda. In Iraq, Al Quaeda killed many more Shiites than US soldiers.

I can understand you though. You also need Lieberman to whisper into your ears :)

____________________

zotz:

Brambster
Yesterday, player told me that he thought that my disapproval of the Iraq war was evidence that I was a homosexual. But I disagree with you about him being a loon. It's not fair to the rest of the loons!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Image:Common_Loon_with_chick.jpg

I hope Margie Omero is right!
"These findings build upon earlier results I wrote about this week. It seems increasingly unlikely that former Hillary Clinton supporters will move to McCain because of Sarah Palin. But during the heat of the Republican convention, the Republican base is indeed energized."

____________________

Robi:

Swing Vote:

I think Boskop got the message with my 5 journal recommendations. Don't rub it in.

____________________

rdw4potus:

The phrasing that this poll uses is rare. it says "who do you think you will vote for in november" instead of the more conventional "if the election were held today..."

Adding the time factor in creates a less-sure response and increases the number of undecideds.

____________________

Robi:

I never thought of that. Good point.

To boskop:

I really am not trying to be condescending to you when I say this (and I think everyone would be well off taking this advice).

The journals I gave links to are very good at understanding complex foreign policy issues and is a very good resource to understand the situations going on around the world. I encourage people to read which ever articles deal with areas of their interest (if you're into foreign policy like I am) and understand what policy advisers (because people who write articles like these can end up being policy advisers) are thinking when it comes to these situations.

They don't get political (i.e. Obama is better because or McCain is better because) and they aren't trying to trick you. It's a very good way of keeping informed.

____________________

Robi:

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/jcp/

As I said before, I also recommend reading "The Economist". I don't read the financial times but my peers like it so I guess you could read that too.

____________________

Lionidze:

The Democratic primaries were completely predictable, based on race. In every case a formula held true. Any state with under 5% minority population went for Obama. Any state with over 15% minority population went for Obama. All states with between 5% and 15% minority populations went for Hillary Clinton. Check it out. You will find this is accurate.

The Bradley effect only takes place under certain conditions, usually when the polls show a minority ahead by three or four points. In many cases the minority will lose the election as a percentage of white voters lie to the pollsters about whom they will vote for, or in exit polls, for whom they voted.
An 8 point lead, as an example, is more than the Bradley effect, named for former LA Mayor Bradley, can overcome. So Obama could readily win a bunch of places.

Each of the polls listed in this wensite should be carefully analyzed. Procedures and practices do influence the polls and some pollsters average several points of bias. This is not intentional. It is a reflection of the methodology the pollsters employ. Reference this site, August 24th, an article by Charles Franklin "How Pollsters Affect Results". Franklin quantifies the biases to an accuracy of 95%. Rasmussen, for example, averages about a three point bias in favor of Republicans. Harris, foir example, averages about a four point bias in favorite of Democrats. In order to accurately assess the polls you should know the biases. Adding biases to margins of error can produce startingly different results from those read at first glance.

____________________

brambster:

@zotz

You mean when he said this:

Your loud mouthed blow hearted name calling will get you no where with me. It just shows your ignorance and immaturity. You are so blinded by the extreme left homosexual elite of the democrat party that you foolishly believe everything they say to you. Its either that or you are one of them.

One of my favorite loony posts by Player also occurred on that same page:

Yea, and a little guy like Hitler who was let out of jail by the liberals will never try to take over the world. Who got fooled there? We have nukes and we will use them if need be. We used them in Japan. The world knows this. You show any signs of weakness in this world and they will eat you alive. The left has got this liberal idealism that they are living in a perfect world. The left needs a little touch of reality to see the dangers. It looks like 911 didn't wake them up.

And searching Pollster for his name shows a long history of racist, bigoted and otherwise strange and objectionable comments. He's a simple-minded person that eats up the toughest propaganda more than anything else because that's what his testosterone tells him to do.

Now Player, like some of the other resident loons, claims to have been for Hillary. I do in fact believe that such people are representative of the types of voters that would have supported Hillary for President, and might have supported other Democrats in the past. These people are just stragglers that didn't get picked up by the Southern Strategy. Many are bigots or racists, and they are simple minded and respond to the toughest rhetoric and claims of patriotism. Obama doesn't play this game. These people might have been Democrats, but they clearly don't identify with the Democratic party platform.

Now for every one of these loons that Obama lost the support of, a Republican-leaning person that pays attention and is sick of being used switched over to support Obama. Obama's Democratic support is no worse than that of any recent Democrat at this stage of the election, and he may very well generate greater support among Democrats than anyone since Clinton in 1996.

____________________

Robi:

brambster unleashing a little rage there.

____________________

Lionidze:

I employed pollsters for about 15 years. The message is be wary of all polls until you thoroughly check out the processes. Take the CBS poll that showed an even race. 1) it was a small sample for a national poll. This means a marin of error at 4 %, plus or minus and a greater MoE on any internal information. When you get to 7% MoE you're using practically useless data. 2)there were comparatively a high number of "undecideds". In actuality, probably 20% or more have not definitely made up their minds at this point. In polls it depends on how hard the pollster asks the surveyed person for a response. Some pollsters are quite insistant in getting a response. Others don't ask a follow-up at all. Many ask if the surveyed person is "leaning" toward a candidate. The results can obviously change depending on how many people give a firm response. This is a very "gray" area.

From what I recall, this CBS poll may have come out late in the afternoon. The polling workers had collected information throughout the day. Usually this will tend toward getting older people in the survey, retirees are home. It sometimes favors women, many women are home. The time of day the information is collected can be critical, too.

The pollsters use modeling to readjust the data. Sometimes they oversample to get a truer representation than merely using past averages. Minorities are often undercounted so some surveys oversample after the initial poll, incorporating the special information into the poll. There is a difficulty, though, when there isn't enough past statistical base to use for the models. This year in the Democratic primaries more people turmned out than expected. More minorities, young people and women turned out than the models would have predicted in some states. So the polls being taken and reported now, still using older data, may not be taking some changes into account. The "ground game" may give Obama several points more in some states than are being reported in polling. Just remember all this when evaluating what the polls are actually telling us.

____________________

John:

I am not sure you are correct about the democratic primaries, Lionidze. Many states with a minority population of 5-15% went to Obama: Wisconsin, Colorado and Montana to name a few. Perhaps you meant states with a 5-15% African-american population but then there is Connecticut and Missouri.

I am not really sure if the Bradley effect still exists (if it ever did), and there didn't seem to be much evidence for it during the primaries. If you have found some evidence it does exist, I would be very interested to see it.

____________________

brambster:

@Lionidze

First off, the Bradly Effect is and likely always a farce. Where it was said to be seen was more likely a reflection of bad exit polling, and we have certainly seen a lot of bad exit polling in the last two presidential elections. There is now plenty of study on this, and it clearly doesn't exist.

In fact, there is a contra condition that exists. Just like Hillary mobilized feminist women to over-perform historical trends, Obama mobilizes the AA vote. This was seen repeatedly in states with larger AA populations during the primaries. Obama often out-performed his polling advantage when the results were counted.

I can't say for sure what November 4th will show when the results are counted, but I believe there is about a 60% chance of Democrats outperforming their distribution from the last two presidential elections. I figure there is a 30% chance of things being roughly the same as 2004, and about a 10% chance of turnout going down. Naturally this doesn't take into account what might happen in the next 60 days which may influence this.

The reasons that I expect increased turnout by Democrats are as follows:

1) In 2006 this was definitely the case.

2) Obama mobilizes the AA segment of the Democratic party.

3) Obama enjoys an enthusiasm advantage over McCain supporters. That same enthusiasm advantage gave Obama his primary win as he won virtually every caucus contest due to the enthusiasm gap that existed with Hillary.

4) The primary season resulted in 48 contested state contests, more than half of which haven't seen a legitimately contested presidential primary in decades, and this benefited Obama's presidential campaign in terms of the ground game. It also increased Democratic registrations far and wide.

5) McCain's ground game seems to be well behind his predecessors.

6) The youth vote, which turned out strong for Kerry, stronger than in any recent time, should be even more mobilized for Obama, and Obama has an even greater advantage with this group than before. Having multiple on-going unpopular wars is a great way of getting the youth vote out. I remember being 21 and scared as heck that there might be a draft in 1991, and that I would have to go and fight in/for a country that I had never even heard of, and that war ended up being perfectly managed and executed.

I'm sure there are many more, but I don't see any strengths for McCain that would suggest a better turnout for Republicans than seen in 2004.

____________________

zotz:

Why did the polls get it so wrong in the New Hampshire primary if it wasn't the Bradley effect? Bill and Hillary both thought they they were going to lose. Was it the crying episode or were the polls just wrong?

____________________

Robi:

zotz:

The polls could have been just wrong because I don't think the bradley effect happened in any other primary.

____________________

Basil:

Thanks for an interesting exchange, folks. Robi's somewhat draconian kickoff may have set a different tone.

Or maybe it's convention fatigue. I am personally so affronted by what I see as the total cynicism of the Palin phenomenon, that it's hard to be too calm.

I can be a lefty loon from time to time, but I basically concur with Brambster's list. I do try to avoid calling posters rude names, though not with total success.

This site is an encounter group based on the examination of polls the are meant to gauge the effect of political maneuverings on public opinion. That covers a lot of conceptual territory.

____________________

Basil:

Re the discrepancy between polls and outcome in the NH primary, is it exit polls or earlier ones that are so off? I recall some late moves by Hillary that were alleged (by the Obama campaign) to have shifted support away from Obama in that contest.

Exit polling seems trickier to me, methodologically. And frankly, I'm not sure they're worthwhile at all. Just count the damn votes and report that.

Incidentally, if Canada can count votes properly, why can't we?

____________________

Robi:

Basil:

I'm just wondering, did you think I was asking too much at the beginning?

____________________

saywhat90:

it is sad that there is even a discussion of the bradley effect. if it is still a factor in the election then it tells me that we have nto trascended race. i believe it not to be the case because barack obama did win the primaries.although there was one anomaly(new hampsire) i think it was more hillary's campaign strategy than gave her the victory there. and dont give me that well blacks are voting for barack because he is black.it is well known that those aa who do vote have voted faithfully for what they have been given and have liked their selection in spite of his race. if it was that simple then jesse jackson would have competed in any primary where blacks had a descent populace. but he didnt. so its more than that.

____________________

Robi:

saywhat90:

I think it is because some people want to comfort themselves about the electoral polling numbers however they can.

____________________

player:

@Bamster:
Oh first I'm a radical nut, and now I am a loon. Your childish name calling makes it impossible for you to even be taken seriously. Furthermore, it seems to be the main tactic of the Obama supporters. Actually these kid antics are going to cost you the election. One of these days your bubble is going to bust, and you are going to have to face reality. Its time for you to grow up.

____________________

Robi:

Player:

You seriously don't think that the Republicans do that too? I think you need a reality check.

____________________

Basil:

@ Robi

Yes, but allegations of fact should be supported if possible. This site has a lot of opinion-swapping sans facts, but it doesn't make the opinions irrelevant, necessarily.

I do like links, though.

Speaking of links, the John Stewart clip with Rove, O'Reilly, etc. disagreeing with themselves was fantastic! That single link, plus Murphy/Noonan-gate, made my day.
How 'bout them facts?

I mentioned this before, but I think George Lakoff's analysis of the religious right's mindset is absolutely correct (google him and look for the discussion of Quayle's Question about why the "best people" pay the most taxes). A republican participating in a Minnesota Public Radio show today ("Behind Party Lines") confirmed Lakoff's point with eerie precision. If you aren't succeeding, God help you.

____________________

Robi:

Both sides have supporters that do it so don't say one does it more than the other. You know that it's dishonest to say otherwise.

____________________

Robi:

That last post was directed towards player.

____________________

Robi:

Basil:

I'm upset that people don't want to take a little time to research properly the issues.

Research was done in which recently, only approx. 45% polled in the US knew who the vice president was! That shows me something is wrong with this country and how we choose to inform our people.

I know it's not good politics, but why can't people learn the actual issues of a candidate instead of thinking things that are plainly false such as "disarming the military" or "increasing taxes on all americans"?

A stance that a candidate has is not an opinion, but a fact. The opinion lies in if the stance is valid or not. In other words, I'm getting sick and tired of people like player and all the others who flat-out lie (or are severely mistaken and ill-informed) about a candidate's policy rather than argue against the actual policy.

Is it that hard to ask people that are going to pick the "leader of the free world" to understand what each candidate actually stands for? I can say, without slandering his position, what McCain stands for (currently), and not lie about his position. I will then argue against it but I won't lie about what the position is.

Why can't people do the same about Obama?

____________________

John:

I don't know, Robi, if Player deliberately misspelled Brambster's name in his last post, it might show a sense of humour and good sense of irony (or it might show the complete absence of one!)

____________________

saywhat90:

because it is not the way to play(er). bashing someone is alot easier to do then to address the issues. alot easier to do than to address others opinion of something. easier to do than proving you are right. so instead of asking why someone disagrees with the war on iraq, you call someone a traitor. or you say they dotn believe in reality.if you say hey was bin laden you get how dare you. if you say i believe in some social programs you are a commie.if believe in guns then you are redneck(thank you jeff foxworthy). the list goes on and on. instead of truly making we(me too) get into unwarranted rant about nothing. all because is easier to do. substance is a lot harder to express.

____________________

Robi:

Saywhat90, Basil, Brambster, John, zotz, pion and anyone else who has been frustrated by slanderous and ignorant postings:

Let's all try our hardest to not get bogged down in petty issues and blatant lies. Let's ignore the slanderous remarks and only respond to valid arguments. Don't get frustrated at these people, just shrug it off and wait for someone with an intelligent argument to come forward.

Hubris is deadly and we should not fall for it. No more name calling. Just ignore these guys if they have nothing of substance to contribute. Anyone want to get on board?

____________________

Lionidze:

John,
I got the information regarding minorities and Obama/Clinton support from Chuck Todd at MSNBC.The only state that was questionable about fitting into the formula, according to Todd, was South Dakota, where the minority population was primarily Native American.

In the primaries New Hampshire was the only place where there might have been a "Bradley effect". The Bradley effect had been documented
in Tennessee and Virginia some years ago, but hasn't seemed as prevalent in recent elections. But I'd be wary of stating the Bradley effect actually came into play. In fact, this year 20% of the voters in the exit poll in West Virginia openly admitted they voted against Obama because of his race. Kentucky was in the mid-teens. Maybe we've become more honest about our prejudices.

I tend to think New Hampshire could be attributed to a late surge in women voters turning out for Hillary in greater numbers than the models projected. One thing no pollster dealt with before was a presidential primary season that included strong female (Clinton) and strong minority (Obama and Richardson)candidates. The dynamics of some of the state elections were unusual because of the mix of influences. Without a history to use as a guide, pollsters were guessing. New Hampshire might just have been a poor guess.

____________________

Basil:

I was thinking of Hillary's election eve phone campaign to convince women in NH that Obama had repeatedly voted against choice in Illinois--a charge he only later was able to successfully refute. That was before the kitchen sink strategy really got rolling, and seemed plausible given the auspices of the callers (I forget which organization).

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

Lionidze said...
"Any state with under 5% minority population went for Obama. Any state with over 15% minority population went for Obama. All states with between 5% and 15% minority populations went for Hillary Clinton. Check it out. You will find this is accurate."

Be careful when you make absolute statements, because they might not be correct.

For example:

Arizona - 12.7% non-white, won by Clinton
Arkansas - 18.9% non-white, won by Clinton
California - 23.1% non-white, won by Clinton
Colorado - 9.9% non-white, won by Obama
Florida - 19.8% non-white, 'won' by Clinton
Iowa - 5.4% non-white, won by Obama
Kansas - 10.9% non-white, won by Obama
Minnesota - 10.7% non-white, won by Obama
Montana - 9.2% non-white, won by Obama
Nebraska - 8.2% non-white, won by Obama
New Jersey - 23.6% non-white, won by Clinton
New Mexico - 15.4% non-white, won by Clinton
New York - 26.3% non-white, won by Clinton
Ohio - 15.1% non-white, won by Clinton
Oklahoma - 21.7% non-white, won by Clinton
Oregon - 9.5% non-white, won by Obama
Tennessee - 19.6% non-white, won by Clinton
Texas - 17.3% non-white, split decision
Utah - 6.5% non-white, won by Obama
Wisconsin - 10.0% non-white, won by Obama
Wyoming - 5.5% non-white, won by Obama

Non-white population per cent from Census Bureau 2006 estimates; primary or caucus winner per The Green Papers.

I count 20 or 21 states (depending on how you count Texas) where your absolute 'less than 5% or greater than 15% for Obama; greater than 5% but less than 15% for Clinton' rule did not apply. That is a 40% or 42% error rate. Not a good rate. Flipping a coin would do almost as well.

Mike

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

A correction to my above post:

Arizona should not have been included in the above list. That means 19 or 20 states did not fit the absolute rule you gave, making your error rate either 38% or 40%. Still not a good error rate.

Mike

____________________

thoughtful:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while McCain earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 49%, McCain 46% (see recent daily results).

McCain's Rasmussen high water mark is 47%!

Stillow, my friend, your guys have got this bounce to +2 and it's gone!

Not enough Americans are buying into the misrepresentations/lies and the absence of policies. The Republican ticket lacks credibility.

The trend is hugely bad - in fact could hardly be worse for McCain. It looks like Obama was leading in yesterday's polling by 5 points minimum. 50-45 by Monday!

____________________

zotz:

And that is after Rasmussen adjusted its weighting system to favor the Reps! The undecideds aren't buying the Palin BS!

____________________

Patrick:

In my humble opinion, there are a few very important points in this historic and unprecedented election year that very few people are considering, but make national polls less relevant than they normally are. 1) Unless there is a "bombshell" event in the next 2 months, the election is going to be close (i.e. within 3-4% in the popular vote); 2) One of the presidential candidates is black and one of the VPs is a woman, so there will be much more "identity" voting than in a normal election year; 3) As we saw in several "blue collar" states (NH, OH, PA, MI, etc) in the primaries, there is likely more racism in the privacy of the voting booth than people are willing to admit in polls. So even if Obama is ahead in a poll, he may end up losing on election day (think New Hampshire!). Alternatively, there may very well be more women who will actally vote for McCain/Palin just because she's a woman than they're willing to admit to pollsters. (Example: my 78 year old mother, a lifelong Democrat, has "secretly" (isn't telling her friends, all Dems) switched her vote to McCain/Palin just so she can vote for a woman before she dies. Obama didn't give her that chance and to her (like many women), true feminism mean trying to promote any woman, not just the ones you agree with. 4) Finally (and most importantly), Obama will surely carry the very large blue states (inc. CA, NY, IL, WA, OR, and the entire Northeast - with the possible exception of NH) by very big margins. According to current polls, McCain is likely to win few larger red states by big margins (e.g. TX, AZ, GA), but he may well win big, electorally rich states like FL, OH, PA, CO, MI, WI, and several southern states, by pretty small margins. But remember, whether you win a state by 30% or 100 votes, you get the same number of electoral votes. So compared to any election in recent history, there is a MUCH greater chance this year that McCain will win in the electoral college (and win the election) even if Obama carries the popular vote by a few percentage points. (This would be especially ironic since in 2000 - after Gore carried the popular vote but lost the election - Senator elect Hillary Clinton called on Congress to end the electoral college, but couldn't get enough support). So please keep all these important things in mind when you're looking at the national polls this year!

____________________

zotz:

Patrick-
You may be right but if you are it would be against precedent. Women did not turn out big for Ferraro and it is a huge stretch to compare Palin's appeal to Hillary's. It is not supported by polling. Also, the filters these polls use are based on past performance of demographic groups which, in the case of young voters and especially AA voters, underrepresent Obama. If you talk about predjudice, some religious groups, like Babtists, are opposed to women as commanders and many people are predjudiced against the elderly.

You could be right but your scenario is only one out of many in this complicated election.

____________________

illinoisindie:

@Patrick
Agreed that there will be identity voting this year... I am not sure that I buy into the increased racism in the voting booth... I am reminded of IOWA's 95% white population (I went to college there) that pretty much launched BO's candidacy. The "racists" have spoken in states where we have expected them to speak, KY, WV...states that would go to McCain anyway. Agreed that women have an "interest" in seeing the first woman elected to high office, but is Palin capable of bearing that torch...(the debates will tell). I heard her on the campaign trail with the same rhetoric she used in her acceptance speech. While it plays well to the party faithful, my opinion is that it was not well received by independants as it lacked policy direction. A quick note my focus group of "independant women" (everyone calls themself an independant these days) were mostly offended by her, the general feel was "who does she think that she is". (I didnt have any older women who remembered womens suffrage so the demo was less than 44). Women are really harsh critics of other women..while they laud praise on Obama, they hold Palin to more scrutiny

. Also, hiding Palin from the news media may not play too well, hiding usually indicates that you have something to hide and US weekly doesnt count... she has to be perceived to stand up to the tough questions... we do have putin and a-jab to deal with.
The race shouldn't be about Palin but the republicans were looking for a "personality" and got one (lets face it McCain is snooze-central)...the candidacy of McCain will now be viewed through the Palin's lens... which could be super dumb or brillant..depending on how she performs. Ms Alaska once again has a chance to take center stage...


I live in IL and canvass in WI, Im pretty sure that WI, as close as it may be on election day, will go to Obama barring the category 5 bombshell you speak of. McCain actually has to win the electorally rich states that you mentioned or he doesn't win you are kinda stating the obvious. Nothing in the current polling supports a McCain win in PA,WI,MI except suppositions of the Bradley effect that was not present in the primaries. There is also "suppositions" out there of increased democratic voter registration, that the pollsters have not included in some of their weightings. It will be interesting to see the state by state focus of the McCain Camp... I heard that they recently gave up on New Mexico...
Anyway, I dont give a cahoot about the daily trackers... yes it measures the temperature of the race at any given moment, but like the weather in chicago it changes minute by minute.
The state by state polls now thats your "red meat" right there

____________________

thoughtful:

Patrick

You really have got it.

McCain can't get beyound 47% because there are many more ageist than there are racists.

He's on 46% on Ras with all of Palin's bounce and one day of his 40 million+ watched speech which exposed him for what he is "a tired old war horse" - That's not Presidential material!

People vote for the top of the ticket and trust me and all the other pollsters Palin is alienating just as many voters as attracting. She has rallied the core and the Christian right but the centre and particularly women are not falling for her glasses and conservative dress sense - they see her for what she is!

PS I simply don't believe you.

Your 78 year old mother presumably did vote for Geraldine Ferrorro? Better remind her of that!

____________________

sherriot:

I participated in this poll for awhile. The questions are sent daily and are virtually the same. I signed up for it. I got bored and quit. I wouldn't put much faith in the results.

____________________

illinoisindie:

an additional thought... in the upcoming state by state polls. I think an interesting statistic to watch will be the % men supporting the repub ticket in the upcoming state by state polls, particularly by age. Gender Bias goes both ways...

____________________

thoughtful:

illinoisindie

I agree with you. The national trackers are important only in so far as providing us with a general freeze frame snapshot trend line.

The polls of the states that we have had recently are spelling big trouble for McCain.

Palin was like a sort of speed injection, but people vote for the top of the ticket, and her effect fades quickly. She actually seems in contrast to make McCain even older than his 78 years - "energized" is Fox's words for him!

We do need to see VA, Fl, OH and CO in particular.

____________________

zotz:

thoughtful-
72 years. But I agree, he does look 78.

____________________

thoughtful:

Zotz

a slip, but the ageism is a fact and McCain is no Ronald Reagan!

____________________

illinoisindie:

@zotz
Actually I think the ageism is now amplified by the fact that he picked Palin... the talking point is now... "what if McCain drops dead.." and a lot of people are sayin... oh yeah... what if... thats why Sarah Palin is so important. So I disagree with thoughtful when he says people vote for the top of the ticket except in the Obama case. I think Obama gave "legitimacy" to his governing skills by picking Biden... Obama has been somewhat vetted for 16 months in the media, Biden has been around for a long time so there is nothing to vet. Palin however is the newbie and until the media gets some answers... shes the "star". So she will be the shot of speed that keeps on giving (to the republican base for now). Their hope is that people (what they really mean is women) will fall in love with the small town values etc etc... but as of yet they have given women nothing to fall in love with yet. I suppose if she were running in Canada, she'd be a shoe-in with the whole hokey-mom thing, but this is the United States of America Jack. So in her words..."when the lights fade and the props go back to the studio lot" there had better be some substance there

____________________

zotz:

illinoisindie-
Here is a blast from Andrew Sullivan as only he can.

"This decision is not worthy of a great power. Whatever skills Palin may turn out to have, however fabulous a person she may turn out to be, even if she becomes the Eva Peron of Christianism, McCain had no idea when he picked her.
He winged this. That's the critical, unavoidable, devastating point.
John McCain has demonstrated with this insane decision that he is unfit to be president of the United States. This was an act of near-criminal negligence. If he can behave this recklessly and impulsively with this decision, the idea of allowing him to become president of the United States is only a smidgen less terrifying than thinking of Palin in that position.
Whatever few doubts I may once have still had about this election, they are resolved now.

Obama has to win. The alternative is unthinkable."

____________________

thoughtful:

llinoisindie

I am not going to split semantics with you, as I first brought up the ageism weeks ago on this site as being a bigger issue than racism, the point that perhaps I am understating is that Palin hightens the age issue.

____________________

Basil:

Nice quote, zotz.
There is no refutation of Sullivan's point.
McCain seems to be confusing "change" with "shaking things up". Bush/Cheney already shook things up. Now we need to sort out their mess.
McCain/Pitbull: random change you won't see coming.

____________________

illinoisindie:

@ thoughtful
I think we are agreeing on the ageism/ racism contrast...
But lets agree to disagree on people voting the top of the ticket (thats my only differing opinion)... I think because of Palin people will vote not only the top of the ticket but the bottom also.

____________________

Paul:

I have analyzed this particular poll over the last six weeks. I have noted that the sampling by demographic group (cell) has varied from poll to poll. In addition to the problem associated with different cell proportions each week, the cells in some cases do not reflect what might be reasonably predicted to be the breakouts this year, based on the 2000 and 2004 exit polls.

I have examined party ID, political alignment, gender, age, race, and income. I have compared the breakouts to the exit polls in 2004 and 2000. Each week I can tell the extent to which the poll looks as if it is a reasonable representative sample. Using the raw data from the poll, compared to benchmarks from the 2000 and 2004 exit polls, I can then make a statement as to where Obama and McCain stand.

This poll shows Obama ahead by 2.94 points. Adjusted for the 2000 and 2004 exit polls (I used an average), Obama would be ahead by 2.23%.

The only variable which can be questioned is the benchmark --- that is who will vote? Which benchmarks based on the average of the 2000 and 2004 exit polls are most likely to change this year? Conventional wisdom appears to be that the percent of Democrats, females, 18-29 and African Americans will increase. Obama does well with all four groups.

However, based on the 2000-2004 exit poll average, this particular poll under-samples Republicans, over-samples liberals, under-samples males, over-samples females, over-samples 18-29, and over-samples less than 50K. In each case these mis-matches bias the poll in Obama's direction, which is why the adjusted number, Obama +2.23% is less than the poll number of +2.94%.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR