nimh
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 06:34 pm
This is completely tangential, but kinda funny --

Google apparently has this new feature: See what Obama, McCain and leading political pundits are reading

So I havent clicked through yet, so I dont know how it's determined; for now I was just kinda amused of how totally stereotypical the listings were.

Screenshot:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7947/obamamccainreadingdt5.gif
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:54 pm
Quote:
DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- It's a dead heat in the race for the White House.

...


Well, what do you know ...

LINK
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 01:40 am
@Ticomaya,
Not much, apparently. From your article:

Quote:
The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for all voters. For registered Democrats, it is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, and for Democrats who still support Clinton for the party's nomination, it is plus or minus 7.5 percentage points


That is to say, CNN has no real idea what the actual numbers of Clinton supporters who are planning on voting for Obama are. +- 7.5 % is a ridiculous interval.

Sure sounds like a horse race if you put it that way, don't it, tho?

Cycloptichorn
nimh
 
  5  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 06:42 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, regardless of the specifics of this poll, are you seriously disagreeing with Tico that it's a "dead heat" or even "a horse race" now?

These are the current numbers:

Pollster.com trendline: Obama +1.0
Realclearpolitics: Obama +1.6
Fivethirtyeight.com: Obama +0.5
Gallup daily tracking: Obama/McCain equal

I told you last month that the Obama lead was nothing to be overly confident about; that all was needed was for him to lose 2.5%, one in fourty voters, and for McCain to win the same, and it'd be gone again. You responded that a 5% swing would be a major swing that was very unlikely to happen. Well, here we are. Bluster is rarely well-advised.

EDIT: And of course there is nothing out of the ordinary or particularly unreliable about the sample of 1,023 in the CNN poll or the accompanying sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. A sample of about 1,000 is pretty much the standard for the best-known polls.
engineer
 
  3  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 07:24 am
Of course it is a horserace at this time. Here's an interesting read on polling "home effects." http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 07:26 am
@mysteryman,
You are confusing 'taxes' with "income taxes". Personal income taxes only make up 50% of the federal revenues.

You can't talk about who is paying the taxes if you want to ignore 50% of the taxation, the majority of which falls on those making less than $150,000.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 07:27 am
@mysteryman,
Only more of the same..

Ignore 50% of Federal taxes when you try to prove who is paying the most.
0 Replies
 
nicole415
 
  3  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 07:47 am
@nimh,
The race for the White House is a marathon not a sprint. There is no doubt that McCain has gained ground and perhaps has caught up for now. (I have suspected all along that the polls aren't reaching younger voters who don't answer or don't have home phones) The national polls are meaningless anyway unless one candidate has a clear lead. Bush "won" in 2000 despite losing the national popular vote.

All the polls I have seen have Obama ahead in electoral votes and it will be turnout that decides the election. Potential Obama voters are enthusiastic about their choice at nearly 2-1 over McCain voters. Add to that the fact that Obama will have a far better ground game than McCain on election day and you have the possibility of an electoral vote landslide.

I saw a poll that indicated about 50% of respondents had never heard of Joe Biden. Do these people really know who McCain is or understand that he is as dangerous as George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy (endless wars) and wants to continue the same failed economic policies as Dubya? A lot of these people still really believe that McCain is a maverick and Obama is this scary black man with the weird name.

The two things I do worry about is what October Surprise the administration is cooking up to try to boost McCain's chances and what the Republaicans will pull to suppress the vote.
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 07:56 am
@nicole415,
Hi Nicole, welcome to A2K!

I think the "how well do you know McCain?" question is an interesting one, and it seems to be picking up steam (I approve). A lot of what seems to have happened is that people retain the idea that McCain is a "maverick," that he goes against the Republicans. But they then insert their OWN non-Republican view as the one he espoused as well, and that's often not the case. (For example, female McCain supporters thinking he's pro-choice, and changing their support for him when they find out that he's actually pro-life.)
sozobe
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 08:07 am
@sozobe,
Meanwhile, a randomish rant...

Who says 11:00 PM is prime time?!!

I'm gonna miss Michelle's speech and I'm not happy about it. Evil or Very Mad
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 08:55 am
@nimh,
Yup, I'm disagreeing that it is a 'dead heat.' Obama is still the clear leader at this point.

Here's what ol' Nate had to say about the CNN poll -

Quote:
CNN Poll Suggests Trouble for Obama, But Omits Proper Context

A new CNN / Opinion Research released earlier this evening, and conducted yesterday and today in the wake of Barack Obama's announcement of Joe Biden as his running mate, shows a tied race at 47-47.

This is not good news for Obama, who had led by 7 points in a CNN poll released in late July. It would be nice to know why the decline occurred. However, the analysis of the poll omits several important pieces of context, and may come to a misleading conclusion about the reason for his decline.

CNN implies that the reason for the downtrend is a backlash among Hillary Clinton's supporters who had wanted Clinton to be the VP nominee:

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.

“This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain,” adds Holland.

So what’s the difference now?

It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the Senator from New York as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

“The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most although not all of the support McCain has gained in that time,” says Holland.

There is a little bit of sleight-of-hand here. The analysis begins by comparing Obama's performance in this new poll to CNN's next-most-recent one, which had been conducted in late July. However, CNN then switches to discussing a different poll, one which was conducted in late June, and pulls several pieces of information about the preferences of Hillary Clinton supporters from that June version of its survey.

Why does this matter? The hypothesis suggested by the article is that Barack Obama's support has been impaired by the negative reactions of Hillary Clinton's supporters to his VP pick. The best way to test that would be to compare a poll conducted immediately before the VP pick to one conducted immediately after, before other events had a chance to intervene.

CNN is only in the field once a month or so, and so their most recent poll had been conducted three or four weeks ago, not quite as recent as we'd like. However, this would still be a lot better than a poll conducted seven or eight weeks ago. Why didn't CNN cite the preferences of Clinton supporters from its July poll instead of its June one?

Well, there are two possible reasons. Reason #1 is that they did not identify Clinton supporters in July, but had done so in June and then again now in August. This is entirely possible; most pollsters rotate different sorts of questions into and out of their polls in different months.

But we have no way to know, because CNN has not released any additional detail on at least its last three polls: no complete set of topline results, and certainly no detailed cross-tabular information. The only information we get is the information that their analysts decide to make available to us.

Essentially every other reputable polling organization, including Gallup, CBS/NYT, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post, Fox News/Opinion Dyanamics, LA Times/Bloomberg, Newsweek/Princeton Associates, Economist/YouGov, Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Pew, Cook/RT Strategies, Public Policy Polling, Mason-Dixon, Quinnipiac, Tarrance/Battleground, IBD/TIPP, Hotline/FD and Democracy Corps, routinely makes this kind of information available. A handful of others are less consistent about it, however, they tend to strike a far less editorial tone in the presentation of their results than does CNN.

The other possibility, of course, is that CNN did identify Clinton supporters in its July poll, but chose not to cite those results because they didn't fit with its storyline. The number of Clinton-supporting Democrats will be fairly small in any given survey (probably about one-sixth of the total sample), and results from that subgroup will therefore shift around a lot, with or without reason.

All a poll really is is a series of statistics, and all statistics really are are facts, expressed numerically. As such, they deserve the same respect as any other series of facts reported in any other journalistic context. Too often pollsters think that they are making news by a conducting a poll, rather than simply reporting it.


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/cnn-poll-suggests-trouble-for-obama-but.html

Obama is still way ahead in state polling. He would have to have a significant national setback in order for me to change my opinion that this race is not currently a dead heat. Also, by all reports, it would seem that Obama has put much, much more money into he ground game and 'get out the vote' operation then McCain; the registered Dems have risen quite a bit over the Republicans this cycle, and especially in some battleground state; and the 'enthusiasm gap' is really big as well.

The race is still essentially where it was a few months ago: Obama has a small but real lead in national polling, and a significant lead in state polling. McCain has to over-perform his current numbers in a LOT of states in order to win this Fall. Until some actual event happens, which signals a shift to me, I'm going to continue to be confident about Obama's chances, and you should be too; there's literally no reason not to.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  3  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:03 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Ack, Cyclo caught the "literally" thing from Biden! Very Happy

I think there are two separate things here though.

1.) Is it fair to characterize the current polling numbers as "a dead heat"?

My answer: Yeah, I think so.

2.) Does that mean that Obama doesn't have a better chance at winning the presidency than McCain?

My answer: No, not really. It makes sense that now is when things would be low (his week-long vacation, McCain trying his damndest to bring numbers down with a spate of negative ads, Georgia putting an emphasis on foreign policy), and it also makes sense that things will improve a lot from here. The VP announcement plus the Dem Convention will result in a bump. The McCain people are trying to manage expectations by saying it'll be a 15-pt bump -- I think that's unlikely. But there will be a bump, and I think it'll be a bigger bump than the Republicans get at their convention.

But, especially -- and I know this seems weird to us political junkies -- a lot of people just haven't paid that much attention until now. And there's a two-fer there; Obama seems to do better when people start to pay attention (some exceptions), and McCain's supporters seem to be vulnerable to learning more about him and changing their opinion. (Oh, he's pro-life? Dang, I didn't know that.)
dlowan
 
  3  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:11 am
@sozobe,
Erm, so what do you think of this running mate fella, Soz, and others?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:20 am
@sozobe,
All us gasbags use that term liberally, Laughing

I think that many still have the impression that McCain is still the McCain of 2000. At a dinner party last night, we discussed this; and it was striking.

Has he really changed all that much, they asked? I summed it up really quickly (in order to avoid talking about politics all dinner, lol) by pointing out that Karl Rove, who in 2000 McCain said deserved a 'special place in Hell' for pumping out rumors that he had an illegitimate black baby, is now running his campaign along with his protege Steve Smith. The disgust when Rove's name was mentioned (and these were not wild-eyed liberals, either) was palpable. Obama needs to hammer home that McCain has changed and get Rove's face next to his in commercials.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:26 am
@dlowan,
Good choice, overall. He’s an experienced white haired, white man with a mind of his own, and a tongue as sharp as his wit. He runs off at the mouth frequently, but generally makes sense while doing so. He proposed a 3-state solution to Iraq while the hyper-partisans on both sides of the aisle just bickered about should or shouldn't have. He seems reasonably well respected on both sides of the aisle as well; so he isn't the polarizing figure Hillary would have been. At the same time; many Hill-people like him very much as well... for many of the same reasons, so except for the hopelessly idiotic Hill-people; he should have a party-uniting effect. He’ll hold his own and some of the other guy’s in debate with pretty much anybody McCain might name (Romney.) Only worry there would be the smart-ass-Dukakis effect, but I think he’s smoother than he was. One concern, that I hate to even bring up; he does nothing to make Obama more bullet proof.
nimh
 
  5  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:29 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yup, I'm disagreeing that it is a 'dead heat.' Obama is still the clear leader at this point.

Here's what ol' Nate had to say about the CNN poll -


You cite Nate's objections to this particular poll to argue that it's not a dead heat -- but it's hardly just that CNN poll that is showing it a dead heat. It's the trend/average of all national polls that have Obama's lead down to 1.0 - 1.6%.

You also cite Nate and then add:

Quote:
Obama is still way ahead in state polling. [..] The race is still essentially where it was a few months ago

True? Nate's site, fivethirtyeight.com, does its calculations of Obama's current chances of winning the race primarily on the basis of state polling. Just a month ago, it was showing Obama with a 65%+ chance of winning on the basis of contemporary polling. A few days ago, it was down to about 50% - and on at least one day it actually gave McCain the larger chance. Right now Obama's chances on that site have ticked up again somewhat to 57%, but there's no doubt it's tight, and that it's significantly tighter than it looked a month ago.

We'll soon know more, I suppose. Convention time. Last time, the Democratic convention gave Kerry almost no bump at all, something like a percentage point or two on average. If that happens again, there's real trouble. But it should at least be an easy bar to clear. ;-)
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:34 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
Last time, the Democratic convention gave Kerry almost no bump at all, something like a percentage point or two on average.
Maybe this time they'll be smart enough not to let Kerry speak at it? Razz
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:39 am
@nimh,
Well, what really were my and Nate's objections was the characterization of Hillary supporters in that poll, not the top numbers.

And no, it's not a 'dead heat' for various reasons I listed earlier. If we were describing an upcoming football match, I think it's fair to say that the 'intangibles' or what they call the 'x-factor' is solidly on Obama's side at this point.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:42 am
@dlowan,
I like him!

He's the best choice IMO. I've been bringing up his name since the earliest days as a good choice. He's not perfect, for sure, and I expect there will be a groaner or two before this is all over.

But he's shown a lot of discipline in the run-up to this and I think he has the right temperament overall. Obama has said he wants someone who will challenge him and stand up to him, not just a yes-man -- I think Biden will speak his mind, and that reflects well on both Biden and Obama. And Biden's mind is a good one -- smart guy, lots of experience and knowledge, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

One of the guys I work with is a huge Biden fan and it seems like I've had a lot of occasion to say "hey, your guy did good" in the past year or so.

To come back to temperament for a minute though, I also think that Biden is in the sweet spot of being a genuinely talented guy who is watching his own presidential prospects wane. That was a problem with Edwards for example as a VP I think -- he was a little too viable, too much of a hot commodity with a bright future, to really fold himself into the second-fiddle role with Kerry. And that caused problems for them I think.

Biden on the other hand I think is genuinely happy that he got this opportunity and genuinely admires Obama, and I think he's going to fulfill his duties really well, with genuine passion and a sense of fun. But he has that talent and know-how at the same time. Good combo.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  5  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:42 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

He proposed a 3-state solution to Iraq while the hyper-partisans on both sides of the aisle just bickered about should or shouldn't have.

I like Biden, I think - dont know all that much about him even after seeing a bunch of the debates, but he seems OK. He seems to be a real mensch, judging on various stories and anecdotes I've seen. He seems well respected across much of the Senate as a hard-working, thorough, nose-to-the-grindstone kind of Senator. And he appears to be good at the "attack dog" role traditionally reserved for the Veep candidate, and Lord knows Obama needs one.

His voting record appears to be a mixed bag (he voted for that godawful bankruptcy bill, but he's from Delaware, the banking center of the country, so that may be an extenuating circumstance), but in any case, it wont be him setting the policy.

He voted for the same Congressional authorisation for the Iraq war that Hillary was pilloried for, which is bad; but on the other hand I do kind of like it that he remains a strong voice for robust internationalism in spite of the Iraq fiasco, strongly arguing intervention in Darfur for example. That's reassuring now that many Dems seem to have come to associate any American intervention with Bush's follies and in response default to isolationism (see Georgia).

But this thing you're pointing out here is exactly the one thing that I'm most frowning about. Biden's plan to just cut Iraq in three parts, and accord the Sunnis and Shiites each their own state, was madness, absolute and utter madness. Outside the Sunni Triangle and the SHi'ite south they live right through one another across the country, and that includes Bagdad, split into Sunni, Shi 'ite and a few remaining mixed neighbourhoods. What in heavens name would splitting the country up have involved? Absolute recklessness. And he stubbornly kept pushing the idea too.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1064
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 06/01/2024 at 06:10:59