Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sun 30 Sep, 2007 03:13 pm
I dont think Ramafuchs represents anybody but himself.



Be yourself and present your views for consideration.
Organize the like miinded simpletons.
Smile a while before your departure.

This is my way of life.
If I die today some one will weep for my departure but i will leave this world with a bewitching smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 30 Sep, 2007 04:08 pm
nimh wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Ramafuchs wrote:
Anyone remember the American Author IRVING WALLACE?
He had written about the plight of a black President in WHITE HOUSE.
USA is still not tolerant to approve a lady or blak person at the high post.
Perhaps the wife of ex Resident may change the rules.
Anyway the Non-Americans are not much impressed with American election shows which has nothing to do with decency, decorum and Democracy.


Now, there's a mouth-full that speaks to how many outside the US may view us as anything but what we used to represent to the world at large - before the Bush regime.


I dont think Ramafuchs represents anybody but himself.


nimh, What do you think are the feelings of Europeans towards Americans in general?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sun 30 Sep, 2007 04:49 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
CI
I had aired my views about a country without personal experience but my views about that country are based on the authors who are like you and me.
The fact is this.
Obama or the lady( both are rich) cannot refurbish the Image of USA and I feel so sorry for that.
The Power and arrogance shifted elsewhere and poverty prevails around the globe.
Be global and identify with local is my politcs.


I don't agree with you on this one. Obama would be better for all Americans than would Clinton be. I've never trusted her.

Obama is a person, most ( if not all ) Americans could trust.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Sun 30 Sep, 2007 05:45 pm
Miller
Excuse me please and allow me to clarify my views.
In USA the politics is so shaped to select and then elect a male White wealthy person.
I am not sure whether the front runners irrespective of the colour or gender
will get the approval of the majority of Americans..

I was born in India where a lady was at the helm of affairs.
I had seen the cast ridden Indians had allowed a party which had waged a war against Muslims.
I had seen a Muslim president.
I had seen the qualified minorites like Sicks and the so called untouchables had a chance to show their talents.
I live in Germany
We have a non-approved government with a lady at the helm.
( By the word non-approved I mean none in Germany wish to have this so called grand old alliance)
Your wonderful country has a political system which permits a person( preferably male and Rich)
to sit in WH with the tacid approval of Corporate lobby.
And the percentage of the voters who wish to cross the road to select their leader is pathetically low.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 30 Sep, 2007 06:22 pm
Quote:

Subj: Big news
Date: 9/30/2007 12:35:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)



Dear Lynn,

Last night our movement hit some landmark goals: more than 500,000 donations from more than 350,000 people for the third quarter.

We also got news yesterday from Iowa -- we're leading in the latest Newsweek poll of likely caucus-goers. Here's the breakdown:

Obama: 28%
Clinton: 24%
Edwards: 22%

And our lead climbs to 8 points when first and second choices are combined.

It's important to remember that deciding the Democratic nominee for president is a sequential process that begins in Iowa. Generating momentum early will be the key to winning the nomination.

So while the pundits focus on meaningless national polls, we are leading in the one state where the electorate is most focused on this election and where they are getting the most exposure to Barack.

That same dynamic explains the unprecedented number of donors to our movement. The American people by and large have not yet tuned into this election. But among those who have gotten involved, Barack Obama has inspired record numbers to take ownership of this campaign.

We have a long way to go, but because of your support and determination, we are shattering records and making progress where it counts most.

Thank you so much for everything you've done to make this happen.

David
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 05:37 am
Butrflynet wrote:
Quote:
So while the pundits focus on meaningless national polls, we are leading in the one state where the electorate is most focused on this election and where they are getting the most exposure to Barack.

I think the one reason why I might never be a good campaign foot soldier is because these campaign emails trigger immediate scepsis.

Like this one: "we are leading in" Iowa. That's an awfully broad statement to make on the basis of one (1) poll. As anyone who follows polls closely knows, including the writer of this email I'm sure, it is foolhardy to draw conclusions on the basis of just the one poll.

For example, while the Newsweek poll had Obama in the lead when a filter of likely caucus goers was applied (not when it wasn't), a Strategic Vision poll of likely voters held the same week had Clinton at 24, Edwards at 22 and Obama at 21.

At any other point in the last few months, you'll see the same kind of variation between polls held at roughly the same time. Moreover, you will see the results from any individual pollster bounce up and down quite a bit from one take to the next.

For example, in an ABC/WaPo poll held in Iowa late July, Obama also already once took the lead of the three main candidates, be it with the most minimal of margins. That was followed by six polls by six different pollsters that had Obama in second or third place, trailing Hillary by as much by as much as 9-11% in some, and Edwards by as much as 7-12% in others.

It also bears pointing out that it is very hard to assess who will actually go to the caucuses. Because of the effort involved (going out to a lengthy meeting on a cold January day, knowing about the procedures), the proportion of Democrats taking part is much smaller than that of primary voters in other states. That makes it very challenging to define a filter of who are the "likely caucus goers". Every pollster has a different method and uses different criteria, which is another reason why results will differ, and why one should be hesitant about basing any conclusion on just the one poll.

The David who wrote this email I'm sure knows all this, so he's being a bit disingenious here. He's hardly going to send a new email saying "oops we were wrong" when another poll out has Obama in second or third place again. So, silliness.

The only way to make reliable conclusions about whether someone "is leading" in the state is to look whether a development takes shape across several different polls by different pollsters. Look at the graphs and blog of pollster.com, for example, an excellent resource for those who want to both track the trends across polls and learn about pitfalls in analysing them as well. It currently has the trend development at:

Clinton 26,6%
Edwards 22,6%
Obama 20,6%
Richardson 13,0%
Biden 3,3%
Kucinich 1,7%
Dodd 0,8%
Gravel 0,1%
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:14 am
I think it would be helpful to learn why the top three candidates polls as they do. It seems our perceptions doesn't jive with the results of the polls; why does Clinton win in polls over Obama? Is it experience?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 11:24 am
nimh wrote:
I think the one reason why I might never be a good campaign foot soldier is because these campaign emails trigger immediate scepsis.

I meant specifically in US presidential election campaigns, by the way.. Ive been a perfectly good foot soldier in a couple of election campaigns for the Green Left in Holland, and I'd gladly be one again for the Socialists if I were back home. But that's different - we didnt get these things. I guess perhaps because of the smaller scale, and the fact that you're campaigning for a party rather than one person, it's a bit more down to earth.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 02:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think it would be helpful to learn why the top three candidates polls as they do. It seems our perceptions doesn't jive with the results of the polls; why does Clinton win in polls over Obama? Is it experience?



This article should provide quite a few answers and why I don't give Nimh's "The polls! The polls!" exclamations much credence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900972.html

Quote:
A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; A11



Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Enough connections for you?

Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.

The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.

To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).

WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).

The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.

"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.

WPP insists that things are not quite so intertwined and that its units are strictly segregated. "The various WPP businesses are purposely run independently, and there is no risk of any conflict between clients," said Howard Paster, who is Penn's boss, an ex-aide to President Clinton and a high-level volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I also, personally, don't do any lobbying," added Penn, 53.

But WPP does encourage cross-referrals, especially to avoid conflicts within its firms. "We occasionally will do things with one of the other companies," said Quinn, whose firm worked with Burson-Marsteller's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, on the reelection of Italy's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. The polling firm, of which Penn remains president, is the WPP unit that will be paid millions by the Clinton campaign for Penn's attention.


Penn's reputation with fixed political polling is world-wide.


http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/503/35/


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn,_Schoen_and_Berland_Associates

And take a look at the long list of media research consulting companies owned by the British parent company of Penn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPP_Group

Keep that list in mind when looking at polls and the companies who conducted them.

And another article about the parent company:

http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/wpp.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 03:40 pm
Scary.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 04:21 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
This article should provide quite a few answers and why I don't give Nimh's "The polls! The polls!" exclamations much credence.

Thats a funny thing to say considering you just posted a campaign missive that claimed Obama was leading in Iowa on the basis of just one single poll, and I was the one who cautioned that it's foolhardy to attach such importance to just one poll..
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 04:58 pm
The reason I posted that was about the fundraising goals being met and not the poll results.

I can't help it that you have such an obsession with polls that it is all you focus upon.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 05:31 pm
Quote:
I can't help it that you have such an obsession with polls that it is all you focus upon.

Now you're just getting silly. It's hardly "all I focus upon", as scores of posts about other things - policy, strategy, etc - in this thread alone show.

But yes, sure, I find polls fascinating. I'm genuinely interested in them. It's an intriguing aspect of the race. Not even so much because of the who is ahead, who is behind aspect, though I'll admit a kind of horseracing-style fascination with the game too. But also because it's so interesting to follow how opinions develop, and how they differ from state to state or region to region. What subjects catch people's attention, what events do they react to.

And of course, I'm no expert or anything, fbaezer knows much more about these things - but considering the importance that polls, for better or for worse, do play in the campaign, it's also just practical to have someone around who does follow them. Who can contextualise them a little bit and such. Like I did in the If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections thread last time round as well.

Now of course, everybody's fine with that until the polls turn against their preferred candidate... Then they suddenly get all aggro at the person posting those polls..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 05:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
nimh, What do you think are the feelings of Europeans towards Americans in general?

Way too big a question for me, c.i., I'm not good at such all-covering questions.. Europe is so big, attitudes differ so much from place to place.

Obviously, most people, Albanians excepted, dont like Bush & Co, thats easy. But people are also able to distinguish between government and people.. so then you could just get into this list of positive and negative impressions and prejudices they have of Americans.. but they have those of or against each other as well. I dont know how much one can say on that general a scale that still makes sense!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 05:58 pm
I thought the local (Budapest) media might provide some info on this kind of thing, and also the people you have discussions with on the topic of Americans and our government, since you seem better informed than most Americans. Thanks for responding - at any rate.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:09 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
This article should provide quite a few answers and why I don't give Nimh's "The polls! The polls!" exclamations much credence.
Quote:
A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 20, 2007; A11


Meanwhile, let's dig into this. "Quite a few answers," you say the article and links provide about the reality of polling. I say they provide few. Here's some things to take into consideration:

  • Penn, despite or perhaps because of his work for President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair, is a pollster with a rather controversial name within the world of polling as well. His methods and strategies have at times been deemed controversial to industry standards too. So even in general, it makes little sense to automatically derive judgements about the world of polling overall from observations about Penn. Thats like taking Enron as proof that you cant trust private enterprise.

  • More to the point, Penn is not actually attached to any of the established polling done for the network media and newspapers. He is not attached to any of the polls you see quoted here in these threads. He's not in the business of public polling: he's responsible for internal polling (and more) for the Hillary campaign.

    That means he is in a completely different modus operandi. He's never bound to the responsibility public/media pollsters have - to represent public opinion as best as they know how - in the first place; it is his job to spin. Again, it makes little sense to derive judgements about public pollsters in general, from observations about a political strategist for one of the campaigns.

  • Not just can the whole notion that "the polls" are rigged obviously not be derived from observations about one campaign pollster, but it's also just unfeasible. As political operative, Penn will spin any result in Hillary's way, yes. To jump from there to suggesting that this says something about some purported general spin governing all the polls - commissioned by such varied players as network media (ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, NBC), newspapers (WaPo, NYT, LAT, USA Today), universities (Quinnipiac, GWU) and independent agencies (Gallup) - implies a dive into conspiracy theory. There's just no way that there can be any concerted, planned action on a scale spanning such opposite political backgrounds, and without something going kerflooky.

    If anything, of course, this just underlines the point I was making: do not go on any one single poll. You can never be entirely sure what may be up with it. I'm sceptical about charges of political bias - in a market as competitive as the US polling market (unlike, say, the Venezuelan one), it's simply bad business to lean on your poll politically. If your results consistently deviate from the others in showing one candidate further ahead or further behind, you'll be trusted less and lose clients. But any one single poll can also simply be flawed for regular reasons. It can be an outlier, it may have assessed wrongly which respondents are likely to actually vote, etc. So, by all means, dont draw any conclusions from one poll. But if a trend develops over time, and across different pollsters commissioned by wholly different players, then yes, of course that says something about how public opinion is developing right now.

  • Even re Penn (and I'm not going to defend him otherwise), your charge is not supported by your own links. You write that "Penn's reputation with fixed political polling is world-wide," yet all but one of your links refer to the example of political polling in just the one case (Venezuela). Only the Sourcewatch link refers to other cases, but it's thin gruel. Penn's services were recruited by "British Prime Minister Tony Blair .. in the run-up to the general election in the UK". No allegations of any wrongdoing. Penn's company published one poll in Italy that was at odds with the results of other polls. And finally, Penn's company was contracted by US aid officials to provide Serbian opposition parties with sophisticated voter surveys. I'm sure most of us are glad the Serbian opposition received such support, in the face of a semi-totalitarian state machine.

    Sourcewatch, however, proceeds to connect these things with Jonathan Mowat's conclusion that Penn's company "has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations .. in facilitating coups." Not just isn't that substantiated by the listed examples, also keep in mind that Mowat has gone about spreading the argument that the popular revolutions in Serbia, the Ukraine and Georgia were all merely a kind of assisted coups for US interest. We're talking whacko-land here. Don't tell me that you're mistrustful of polls, but you take a conspiracy theorist like Mowat at his word?

What can I say - I just hope the Obama campaign is smarter than to regress into "the polls just must be wrong" mode. For sure, there's all kinds of relativations that can and should be applied to polling results. They only say something about today; they can not predict the future. They measure the width of support (how many people have a preference for one or the other candidates), but not the depth of support (how committed are the volunteers and campaigners, how well are they organised and networked locally, etc). They do measure whether people are at least committed to their voting preference, and routinely finds that an overwhelming majority has not finally made up its mind yet. Voters nationally are still far from tuned in: it's only a minority that's already following the race closely.

Those are all important relativations of polling results. But none of them mean "the polls must be false." It's just that they have a limited use: they tell you what public concerns and preferences look like, however superficially, right now. That's it. A good campaign will accept that that's exactly what they do, and adapt their strategies to the results, while also being aware that polls can't tell you much beyond that. A campaign that outright thinks that the polls are just lying, on the other hand, is in big doodoo. But I think they know better at Obama HQ. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I thought the local (Budapest) media might provide some info on this kind of thing, and also the people you have discussions with on the topic of Americans and our government

FWIW, I think Hungarians dont like the Bush government - same as almost everywhere. But it's not that they think Americans are bad - they'll see and treat any random American as nicely as any random Brit of Frenchmen. Beyond that, there are of course your regular prejudices about what Americans are like - but then, people have prejudices about the French or Germans too.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:13 pm
Polling has to have some accuracy, or they will not have much credibility. If they're off too much and too often, nobody will bother even looking at polls.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 2 Oct, 2007 05:57 am
In talk with black journalists, Obama seeks to move beyond image ... Obama's case for the big picture @ Charlotte Observer

http://i21.tinypic.com/x58v9d.jpg

Quote:
IN MY OPINION

Obama's case for the big picture

In talk with black journalists, he seeks to move beyond image

MARY C. CURTIS

Barack Obama is like your favorite teacher. He's thoughtful, organized and knowledgeable. And he can be pretty funny.


It's an image at odds with the persistent Obama myth -- forged in a famous speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. The myth of a candidate above it all has withstood efforts by his wife to portray him as everyman and entreaties by some fans for him to raise the decibel level in his battle for the Democratic nomination for president.

Part of Obama's challenge is to get voters to see beyond that and hear his message.

On Sunday, the Illinois senator was back in Columbia, in a state he's been hitting hard in anticipation of its Jan. 29 primary. In a day that started with two church visits, he sat down with several black journalists from the region.

My report: He cannot walk on water but he can speak with passion about issues he believes are important -- and crack an occasional joke.

The meeting included journalists from community publications and broadcast outlets -- an attempt to reach every corner of the electorate. In South Carolina, African American voters could cast about 50 percent of the votes in the Democratic primary.

Even when he touched on the touchy topic of race with this particular audience, Obama aimed broader.

"Most of the issues that people are really thinking about right now," he said, "are issues that cut across racial lines."

Iraq is a concern, he said, both for foreign policy implications and for anxiety that the billions spent there could be used to build schools, pay teachers or provide scholarships.

He said that on health care, everybody he meets -- and in early-primary Iowa that doesn't include a large percentage of black voters -- has a story to tell about rising premiums or avoiding doctor visits to save money.

The economics of wage stagnation and home foreclosures affect many.

"The one area where the African American community is much more concerned -- but what I think is an American issue, not a white or black issue" he said, is criminal justice.

His job, he said, is to "persuade the larger American family that when we are doing the right thing in making sure the law applies equally to everybody, that's good for everybody."

"The most important thing we can do to repair race relations is to make sure all people have an equal opportunity and a good shot at life," Obama said.

Again he made a connection, this time that a skilled, educated work force is essential long-term for the U.S. to remain internationally competitive.

On foreign policy, Obama promised to make Africa a higher priority "not simply for humanitarian reasons but for strategic national security reasons." Failed states, without effective rule of law or a public health infrastructure are, he said, vulnerable to terrorists, pandemics and refugee crises.

In the hour-long conversation, in which he also acknowledged the concern some voters have for the safety of an African American candidate and his family, Obama barely mentioned his major opponent.

He did call Sen. Hillary Clinton the "default" candidate for people who don't know him well. But Obama said he would resist those who want to see the two "go at it." By the time the S.C. primary comes along, he said, everyone will know what he stands for.

Though the decibel level stayed pretty low, he countered the claim that he may not be tough enough to deal with whatever opposing candidates might throw at him: "When I was coming up, the really tough folks," he said, "didn't always talk about how tough they were." That's "part of what's wrong with our politics; politicians go around trying to act tough."

And, since this was an Obama appearance, there rose the issue that a stake to the heart can't seem to kill. He said he's always amused by the "are you black enough" question. He'll says he looks around the stage at the other candidates and think, "Compared to who?"

Mary C. Curtis


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary C. Curtis: [email protected].
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 2 Oct, 2007 10:56 am
nimh wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I thought the local (Budapest) media might provide some info on this kind of thing, and also the people you have discussions with on the topic of Americans and our government

FWIW, I think Hungarians dont like the Bush government - same as almost everywhere. But it's not that they think Americans are bad - they'll see and treat any random American as nicely as any random Brit of Frenchmen. Beyond that, there are of course your regular prejudices about what Americans are like - but then, people have prejudices about the French or Germans too.


Thanks. It confirms what I've been thinking not only about Europeans but also in other places where I have visited. Many of the trips I take includes home visits and talking to university students. We were able to have a discussion with Russian students on my last visit in June 2006, and they were quite open about politics and their life in Russia. Some have even visited the US, and said they wished they could live here.
0 Replies
 
 

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 250
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 02:36:32