Do any polls ask people if they intend to actually vote, or do all the polls just ask who they "would" vote for?
A disparity of turnout for each candidate could be a huge factor in this race, especially considering Obama's ability to draw crowds, and McCain's ability to put them to sleep.
Unless McCain's campaign machine gets itself in gear soon and figures out how to generate some real enthusiasm across their base, then they might as well change their whole campaign strategy to "we give up".
rosborne979 wrote:Do any polls ask people if they intend to actually vote, or do all the polls just ask who they "would" vote for?
A disparity of turnout for each candidate could be a huge factor in this race, especially considering Obama's ability to draw crowds, and McCain's ability to put them to sleep.
Unless McCain's campaign machine gets itself in gear soon and figures out how to generate some real enthusiasm across their base, then they might as well change their whole campaign strategy to "we give up".
Sure, some of them ask that question, and others ask if you've voted in the past, if you are excited, etc... to come up with 'likely voters.'
It can really twist a poll, though; likely voter screens are highly subjective. Obama is definitely going to be relying on heightened AA and young turnout in this election, and many Likely voter models under-measure these groups.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:teenyboone wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Fair enough, I admit my statements were not as artful as they should have been.
In other news,
Quote:According to the survey - the first national poll conducted entirely after the Democratic presidential candidate's trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Europe �- the race for the White House has remained virtually unchanged since late June, with Obama holding a 51-44 percent edge over Sen. John McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/campaign.poll/index.html
That's above 50%.
Cycloptichorn
Just a head's up; you are NOT a racist. Don't know if you're black or white, but you certainly know of the pain we've suffered. Thank You, for being a friend!
No worries. The only thing that people who lived in our neighborhood had in common, when I was growing up, was debt
I honestly thought that
everyone lived that way, racially mixed - white family, black family, hispanic, russian, asian, immigrant... it wasn't until I started going to middle school that I realize that my experience was starkly different from that of many of my classmates from other parts of town.
As I grew older, and watched and experienced my various friends growing older as well, the differences between the struggles we faced in life became more and more apparent. I never had any Democrat, or anyone, tell me about problems associated with many minority communities; I saw it for myself.
It's quite galling for me to be called a racist; it couldn't be further from the truth. Recognizing that some people have a rougher go of it then others in our society isn't racism. Recognizing that some have advantages due to their minority status - that help them along but do NOTHING to combat the underlying issues - isn't racism.
Someday, we'll all find some other common enemy - probably alien life of some type - and racism will vanish, as we all work together to hate the new outsiders
Cycloptichorn
You are the "dream" Martin L. King spoke of in his speech. I was 19 at the time. Did I listen? Unfortunately, I thought he was too passive. Like Ghandi, Martin chose the road less traveled and America has never been the same. You have a few ignorant posters that think that America should be run their way or the highway! If it weren't Blacks being picked on and discriminated against, in Texas, you always had the Mexicans who were there thousands of years before any white man stepped foot on the soil, thus you had the Alamo!
I was in the Alamo, 2 weeks before 9-11 and you could feel the spirit of those who had fought and died there. Brought tears to my eyes, to see the Flags of Louisiana, my birth place, the Flags of New York and New Jersey, of the freed Black slave that fought and died there, Jim Bowie, the graffiti scrawled on the walls. It's heart wrenching! To take a gondola ride down the Yuana Guana, "The San Antonio River", with the huge statue of St Anthony, brought chills to my Catholic heart.
Mexicans are thought of as the "scourge" of this country, but because they are brown people, predominantly Catholic, I reach out in my halting Spanish, whenever I see them. For those already here, just go om and give them citizenship. It must be terrible to live in a country that you can't make a living and I blame Vicente Fox for that! No, you are the future and I'm richer for it. Thank You!
People like the Bushes have made Texas the laughing stock of the country, a state that until he became President I admired.
maporsche wrote:Diest TKO wrote:maporsche wrote:revel wrote:
As far as youthful recreational drugs making someone a drug user, would anyone call president Bush a drug user? If not, then smearing Obama as a drug user for his past usage is not correct and would qualify for a smear tactic.
I think I've seen several hundred posts about GWB being a druggie or some snide comment about his previous drug use or being a dry drunk, etc.
You're right, Bush was criticized about these things.
1) It was quickly dismissed because he was a born again Christian. So is Obama.
2) Bush was still elected.
If Bush's poor performance over the last 7.5 years was due to substance abuse from years prior to him holding office, then yes, it would be a reason to criticize Obama about this.
Like all irrational talking point coming from the right about Obama, if it was going to be an issue in his ability, then it would have manifested itself already elsewhere in his career.
T
K
O
I didn't say it was a valid criticism of Obama (or of Bush for that matter). I could care less about either of their drug use (hell, they could currently be using drugs and as long as they ran the country well, I still wouldn't care).
I think what you (the collective you) need to be prepared for (and probably deserve) is a lot of what's been said about Bush over the last 7 years to be thrown back in your face when the other side makes the same mistakes (or has the same 'issues').
Bush is a horrible president, never should have been elected (god I wish Gore had won), and I believe will go down in history as the worst president in my lifetime. But many of the 'attacks' levied against him were simply childish and you sort of have to expect much of that to now be returned on our candidate (this is our current level of political discourse coming from the majority of both sides).
Lest we not forget that it was the republican's who first started this will Bill Clinton and marijuana. So if it's being thrown in democrats face, it's not like they haven't heard it. The reason it was thrown at GWB was because the then republicans were super quick to forgive Bush for what they were ready to nail Clinton to the wall with.
Honestly, the statements re Bush and drug and alcohol use, were more of poke at partisan republicans than bush himself. More of a "hey, we see what you are doing there guys, and it's total crap."
Republicans are terribly insincere in their attempts to demonize Obama for his past drug usage. If they wanted it to mean anything, they would never have nominated Bush in 2000. They look really dumb disturbing the water on this issue. Republican attacks on Clinton in 92 made us really consider if it was something to be concerned about. The dialog started there, but it ended when the biggest critics nominated Bush.
It's not a real factor, if it's in the past. I'll disagree with you about one thing Maporsche, if a presidential candidate was using WHILE running, this would be an issue for me, because I would see that as a serious credibility issue with being the executor of law and yet breaking it recreationally. Beyond breaking the law, it would be impossible to measure whether it was effecting performance without a frame of reference (a record of behavior without the substance). In previous work with substance abusers, I would make this an issue with me if the substance abuse was current.
It's not though, so it's a pretty entertaining show watching the right-wing puppets sing.
T
K
O
What is more telling is the simple fact that the republican congress wanted to nail Clinton on a "personal" indiscretion on sex, but the conservatives are awfully quiet about all the law-breaking by the conservatives that includes sex with children, fraud, and the latest Ted Stevens' investigation. They get all charged up about adult consenting sex, but say nothing about child molestation concerning republicans in congress. They need to have their heads examined about the imbalance of their rhetoric.
cicerone imposter wrote:What is more telling is the simple fact that the republican congress wanted to nail Clinton on a "personal" indiscretion on sex, but the conservatives are awfully quiet about all the law-breaking by the conservatives that includes sex with children, fraud, and the latest Ted Stevens' investigation. They get all charged up about adult consenting sex, but say nothing about child molestation concerning republicans in congress. They need to have their heads examined about the imbalance of their rhetoric.
You've wrapped it up in one paragraph! If this was Democrats, The Repugs would be foaming at the mouth. I hope Ted Stevens get the BOOK thrown at him, the hypocrite! :wink:
List of lawmakers charged with crimes since 2000
Buzz up!
Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
The Associated Press just sent out a list of federal lawmakers who have been charged with crimes since 2000:
July 29, 2008: Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, indicted on seven counts of falsely reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of services he received from an oil services company that helped renovate his home.
Feb. 22, 2008: Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., indicted on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes in an Arizona land swap that authorities say helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.
June 11, 2007: Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, arrested in a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. He is now asking a state appeals court to let him withdraw his guilty plea.
June 4, 2007: Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., indicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
Jan. 19, 2007: Former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, sentenced to 2 years in prison for trading political favors for gifts and campaign donations from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
March 3, 2006: Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. He collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes in a corruption scheme.
Oct. 3, 2005: Former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, charged with felony money laundering and conspiracy in connection with Republican fundraising efforts in 2002. One charge has been dropped and two others are being argued before a state appeals court.
Aug. 29, 2003: Rep. William Janklow, R-S.D., charged with felony second-degree manslaughter and three misdemeanors after his car struck and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to 100 days in prison.
May 4, 2001: Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of tax evasion, bribery, racketeering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.
This is supposed to be a presidential race, but McCain has debased it to the level of show business.
**************************
AP
McCain camp compares Obama to Spears, Hilton
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago
AURORA, Colo. - John McCain's presidential campaign on Wednesday released a withering television ad comparing Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, suggesting the Democratic contender is little more than a vapid but widely recognized media concoction.
teenyboone wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:What is more telling is the simple fact that the republican congress wanted to nail Clinton on a "personal" indiscretion on sex, but the conservatives are awfully quiet about all the law-breaking by the conservatives that includes sex with children, fraud, and the latest Ted Stevens' investigation. They get all charged up about adult consenting sex, but say nothing about child molestation concerning republicans in congress. They need to have their heads examined about the imbalance of their rhetoric.
You've wrapped it up in one paragraph! If this was Democrats, The Repugs would be foaming at the mouth. I hope Ted Stevens get the BOOK thrown at him, the hypocrite! :wink:
Yes, we all understand, democrats attack republicans but are quiet when democrats do the same thing.
Republican attack democrats but are quiet when the do the same thing.
WE GET IT!
Looks like McCain's polling is structurally at its weakest of this year, and Obama's near its strongest:
That's
from pollster.com, where they track all national polls for this graph, but use an algorythm to distill the trendline and filter out the most immediate noise.
There's some comfort for McCain supporters in the
graph at RealClearPolitics, however, where they simply average out the last couple of polls. That makes the RCP graph very sensitive to the pulling force of outliers though: for instance, right now the one Gallup/USA Today poll that disagreed sharply with all the other polls last week is narrowing Obama's lead by more than a percentage point in the average. But still, FWIW, this graph puts Obama's lead at just 3.0% rather than pollster.com's 5.6%.
Ya gotta admit - McCain just ain't this cool...
I'll bet the dude is hiding from secret agent Helen, the blond...
Miller wrote:I'll bet the dude is hiding from secret agent Helen, the blond...
Make sense. You're babbling.
snood wrote:Miller wrote:I'll bet the dude is hiding from secret agent Helen, the blond...
Make sense. You're babbling.
Guess you didn't know that Helen-the-Secret Agent may be posting on A2K and on this very thread.
Get with the program man, while there's still time. You never know what a Chinese agent with blond hair and multiple personalities is up to.
(backing slowly away)
Yes. You're absolutely right, Miller. Just stay calm; everything's going to be just fine...
Cycloptichorn wrote:nimh wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:I can only know you by what you write, woiyo
There's the rub, Cyclo. If you know nothing about someone but what he writes on a forum about politics -- nothing about his life, nothing about where he came from -- then you shouldnt be making big assertions about how his life matches up to yours. Period.
Otherwise, carry on.
I get spurred on by
posts like this one, which purport to do the same thing to me. When I get called a racist for no reason, it does make me angry.
And I still maintain my original position; I have a huge amount of experience dealing with people from a very wide variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's a part of my every day life and has been for many, many years. The idea that one must be a minority in order to understand the challenges they face, is ludicrous. The idea that anyone who is a member of one minority group would necessarily have a wider experience with minorities then one who is not is less ludicrous but still not a given.
When I say 'I would wager,' I meant it; I really would wager. Woiyo displays no understanding of what he talks about on this issue, and is mostly just lashing out in anger.
Cycloptichorn
You are CLUELESS !
The point of the post is Obama's statement that "AMERICA NEEDS TO DO MORE" (paraphrase). You have YET to address his statement, but are willing to attack me who because I am offended by this statement.
This is a typical of you pantywaist liberals who refuse to debate the issue yet are willing to attack any criticism of your candidate.
I happen to be an expert on my life and how I had to live as a minority and the benefits I had and how I used them to my advantage. You can only guess.
So how about discussing the actual point of the matter which is Obama continuing to apologize on behalf of "minorities" for how BAD America is.
Yep, this apologist **** is for the birds.
The presidency is not an entry level position.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...
Obama can afford to lose Florida... and every other currently Yellow state for that matter; but McCain can not. If Obama takes Florida he's the next President. It's that simple.
