Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 12:32 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
George, let me ask you a question:

Quote:
(Do we really want the Breck boy, sleazy tort lawyer as President?)


Quote:
(Obama)I believe many people have a strong sense of this and that the obvious media adoration of his words and utterances does very little to assuage their reservations. The country payed a high price overcoming JFK's dilletante amateurism, and I doubt it would chose it again.


I was wondering, what evidence have you seen that these are opinions shared by the general electorate?

I think that all of us have a tendency to engage in significant levels of Projection - I know that I do it. It seems so obvious to us that only one conclusion is the logical one based upon the evidence. But, are our own opinions accurate enough to make predictions about the mood or eventually choices of the general electorate?

I don't think that all polling data is necessarily accurate; nor does it paint a complete picture due to both the limitations of the methods and the possibility of of catastrophic errors on the part of the candidates... but it can provide at least some idea of what the 'state of the race' is. And I'd rather see the Dem candidates ahead then behind.

Cycloptichorn


Good question. Undoubtedly I am indulging in a bit of projection. Indeed I do it all the time, whether the question is in guessing how the employees will react to this or that policy or (as I have been discovering this week) how the regional managers will react to some strategic challenges I outlined to them - or in this case in predicting the likely behavior of the electorate. I have been accurate enough so far to satisfy my own objective and psychological needs and requirements, but I suppose that all of us one day get to confront a situation in which our estimates and intuition don't work well. So the straight answer to your question is that I don't know the likely outcome, but what I gave you is my best guess - such as it is. For your part, you have no reason to accept my intuition as particularly valuable - for me, so far, I do.

Objectively there is ample reason to doubt poll results at this early stage of the campaign.


If I didn't accept it as valuable (and informed) I wouldn't engage ya in conversation so frequently. It's more, that I've found that understanding the methodology and logical reasoning behind the opinions of others who I respect has helped me to evolve my own opinions and reasoning process over time.

The best reason not to trust the polls at this point... is that they have been so frequently wrong in the past! But I'll still take leads over deficits any day.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 12:45 pm
Well if I didn't think you were worth saving despite your Berkeley orientation, I wouldn't argue with you so much.

The polls do measure something, but the thing itself is variable - and at this stage based on hypothesis, not fact. I think people react differently to hypothetical alternatives than to real ones. That is how I rationalize the discount I apply to them now.

In addition the media have a vested interest in hyping every twist and turn in the polls, just to keep our attention fixed for their paid commercials.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 01:55 pm
Today's leads don't mean much when we still have about a year before the "real" elections.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 01:56 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Well if I didn't think you were worth saving despite your Berkeley orientation, I wouldn't argue with you so much.

The polls do measure something, but the thing itself is variable - and at this stage based on hypothesis, not fact. I think people react differently to hypothetical alternatives than to real ones. That is how I rationalize the discount I apply to them now.

In addition the media have a vested interest in hyping every twist and turn in the polls, just to keep our attention fixed for their paid commercials.


That's why I like services such as pollster.com which show overall trendlines and actively seek to dampen outliers - such as I suspect the Edwards-crushing graphic above is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 02:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Today's leads don't mean much when we still have about a year before the "real" elections.


Very true, CI. In about 1/2 year I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Obama has advanced colon cancer. Why else could a man his age look so sickly?

Will Americans vote for a man with advanced colon cancer?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 02:31 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The polls do measure something, but the thing itself is variable - and at this stage based on hypothesis, not fact. I think people react differently to hypothetical alternatives than to real ones. That is how I rationalize the discount I apply to them now.

I would probably share your skepticism if it was just the polls about the horse race. But Edwards's strong standing in general election horse race polls is consistently affirmed by polls about issues. And that, in my opinion, makes it more than a temporary snapshot.

To see what I mean, let's first ask what priority people are placing on the various issues the parties are currently debating. The general picture you get from the various independent pollsters is that the top three are the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and healthcare. The next three, not quite as consistently, seem to be terrorism, illegal immigration, and the environment. (Two issues that the Republicans debate a lot among themselves, traditional values and taxes, barely make the top ten.)

Having determined which issues Americans care most about, let's look at the opinions they are holding about those issues.
    [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm][b]The War in Iraq:[/b][/url] The general opinion is [i]very[/i] much on the liberal side: by a 2:1 margin, they oppose the war and disapprove of the way it's being run. By somewhat smaller margins, they think it can't or won't be won, that it was a mistake to start it in the first place, and that the Democrats would handle it better. The war in Iraq is a winner for Democrats against Republicans. Among the Democrats, it strengthens those who took a liberal position on it like Obama, and weakens 'centrists' like Clinton who supported it and refuses to admit that was a mistake. (Edwards is somewhere in the middle.) [b][url=http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm]The State of the Economy[/url] (Also see [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer2.htm]Part 2[/url]):[/b] Throughout the current economic expansion, American have been lukewarm or unhappy about the state of the economy. That's consistent with CBO statistics showing that most of the GDP growth went to the top 10 percent of the income distribution, whereas the bottom 80 percent gained little in real terms (i.e., after correcting for inflation). Gallup finds that by a margin of 2:1, they rate the state of the economy as "only fair" or "poor" rather than "Excellent or good". Asked to identify their major concern about economy, Americans name the cost of healthcare, jobs going overseas, and lack of good-paying jobs. Generally, all this tends to give the Democrats an edge over Republicans. The issue of outsourcing, in particular, gives populists like Edwards and Tankredo an edge over the free traders in both parties, whose position has weakened consistently and sadly during the first seven years of Bush. [b][url=http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm]Healthcare[/url] (Also see [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/health2.htm]part 2[/url] and [url=http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm]part 3[/url]):[/b] Americans are unhappy with the current state of the health care system. They name access and costs as the biggest problems. Although they reject, by narrow margins, the replacement of the current system by a Canadian-style single payer system, Americans believe by a 2:1 margin that the federal government make sure everyone is covered. This, again, should in the hands of Democrats, especially John Edwards, the Democrat who wrote the blueprint of the current generation of Democratic health care plans.
I don't have time to go through the other issues, but the general point is clear: For quite some time now, the position of Americans now has policy priorities that Democrats have been traditionally occupying, bypassing the Republicans' pet issues. Moreover, Americans now hold opinions on most issues that don't just favor Democrats over Republicans, but even favors liberal Democrats over centrist Democrats.

Surprisingly Edwards now voices the opinions of the median American, who has moved far to the left over the last seven years. He is beating the hell out of the Republican candidates, who are out of touch with Americans' new priorities. By contrast, Clinton and Obama, stuck in "the timidity of hope" (Paul Krugman), have a harder time doing the same. (Just as an aside, that's another reason I'm unconvinced by Sozobe's musings about electability.) John Edwards's lead in general election match-ups is much more than a shaky early-poll success.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 02:45 pm
Just here for a second (pity, since it looks like there's stuff I'd like to respond to, more later)... this seems to be a video of the focus group I was commenting on post-debate:

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/iowansreact

WARNING -- it is on a contribution page, and I couldn't make it appear by itself. Don't click if you don't want to have to screen out the money pitch.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 02:51 pm
Yeah. The republicans are still talking about abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They are completely out of touch with America and Americans. Iraq, our economy, and health care are the importanht "three" issues of today.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 14 Dec, 2007 03:16 pm
Thomas wrote:
I would probably share your skepticism if it was just the polls about the horse race. But Edwards's strong standing in general election horse race polls is consistently affirmed by polls about issues. And that, in my opinion, makes it more than a temporary snapshot.

To see what I mean, let's first ask what priority people are placing on the various issues the parties are currently debating. The general picture you get from the various independent pollsters is that the top three are the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and healthcare. The next three, not quite as consistently, seem to be terrorism, illegal immigration, and the environment. (Two issues that the Republicans debate a lot among themselves, traditional values and taxes, barely make the top ten.)

Having determined which issues Americans care most about, let's look at the opinions they are holding about those issues.

Very interesting, Thomas, thank you very much (and I'm not just saying that as an Edwards afficionado). Great stuff.

I've been so free as to cross-post it on the Polls, bets, graphs & numbers thread.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 06:38 am
The increasingly contentious race for the Democratic presidential nomination got a little bit nastier today as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) charged that her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill), wet his bed when he was a toddler.

Iowans have grown used to displays of testiness on the part of the leading Democratic contenders in recent weeks, but few were prepared for Sen. Clinton's accusation that her surging opponent had been a bed-wetter.

Moments after her campaign released this latest bombshell, Sen. Clinton went to great lengths to show that the bed-wetting incident, while occurring when the Illinois senator was only three years old, was "relevant" to the current presidential campaign.

At a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Sen. Clinton said that the alleged bed-wetting incident "should not disqualify" Sen. Obama from the White House, but should make Democrats "think long and hard" about voting for him in next month's caucuses.

"Personally, I don't have anything against having a bed-wetter in the Oval Office," Sen. Clinton said. "But you can be sure that the Republican right-wing attack machine will have a field day with this kind of thing."

At a campaign appearance in Davenport, Sen. Obama brushed off his alleged bed-wetting as an "isolated incident," and added an apparent jab at Sen. Clinton: "I'm not the one who's so scared about this race that I'm peeing myself now."

In response to Sen. Obama's remark, Sen. Clinton later released a statement referring to herself as "rubber" and Sen. Obama as "glue."

Elsewhere, the state of New Jersey banned capital punishment, arguing that living in New Jersey was bad enough.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/hillary-accuses-obama-of-_b_76852.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 03:51 pm
Miller wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Today's leads don't mean much when we still have about a year before the "real" elections.


Very true, CI. In about 1/2 year I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Obama has advanced colon cancer. Why else could a man his age look so sickly?

Will Americans vote for a man with advanced colon cancer?


http://billslater.com/barak_obama.jpg
Oh yea; really sickly.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 04:34 pm
Thomas wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
The polls do measure something, but the thing itself is variable - and at this stage based on hypothesis, not fact. I think people react differently to hypothetical alternatives than to real ones. That is how I rationalize the discount I apply to them now.

I would probably share your skepticism if it was just the polls about the horse race. But Edwards's strong standing in general election horse race polls is consistently affirmed by polls about issues. And that, in my opinion, makes it more than a temporary snapshot.

To see what I mean, let's first ask what priority people are placing on the various issues the parties are currently debating. The general picture you get from the various independent pollsters is that the top three are the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, and healthcare. The next three, not quite as consistently, seem to be terrorism, illegal immigration, and the environment. (Two issues that the Republicans debate a lot among themselves, traditional values and taxes, barely make the top ten.)
....
Surprisingly Edwards now voices the opinions of the median American, who has moved far to the left over the last seven years. He is beating the hell out of the Republican candidates, who are out of touch with Americans' new priorities. By contrast, Clinton and Obama, stuck in "the timidity of hope" (Paul Krugman), have a harder time doing the same. (Just as an aside, that's another reason I'm unconvinced by Sozobe's musings about electability.) John Edwards's lead in general election match-ups is much more than a shaky early-poll success.

Very interesting analysis. I suppose one could argue that all this represents the antipole to the central message of the Reagan doctrine that, to a very large degree, has dominated the last two decades of American political life. The underlying argument might be that we are about to see a shift in the tide, one that reverses the excesses of what preceded it.

I can't argue with the possibility. I certainly hope it is not true. Moreover I am still inclined to believe that Edwards does not posess the gravitas required to mobilize such such support -- the rich tort lawyer/ Breck boy is hardly a contemporary reincarnation of the Gracci. That alone, in my view, may be enough to defeat the thing.

I will agree the Republicans can't brag about what they have put forward so far to counter it. McCain, in my view is the best of the lot, but frankly he is a bit old and perhaps weary of the game. I also think that either Guiliani or Romney are or would be better than any of the Democrat alternatives - but, to a sad degree, that isn't saying much. The Republicans have squandered the past years in valuing the exercise of power and its percs over the full application of the principles that got it for them. This has enabled the current parade of midgets to become a real threat.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 07:54 pm
Boston Globe endorses Obama!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/15/globe_endorses_mccain_obama/
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 08:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
the rich tort lawyer/ Breck boy is hardly a contemporary reincarnation of the Gracci.

My ignorance is showing.. who were the Gracci?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:56 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Moreover I am still inclined to believe that Edwards does not posess the gravitas required to mobilize such such support -- the rich tort lawyer/ Breck boy is hardly a contemporary reincarnation of the Gracci. That alone, in my view, may be enough to defeat the thing.

I do not know whether good old Tiberius and Gaius were trained lawyers of not. But their social status was remarkably similar to Edwards's. All three of them are of plebeian heritage, but personally rich and politically connected by the time they entered public office. One could even argue that the Gracchus brothers were still less likely champions of the poor, their father having already been an influential plebeian politician.

To avoid Sozobe's wrath, I will resist the temptation to explore the matter even further. Although the Gracchi certainy comply with the constitutional age limit for the US presidency, their status as foreign-borns will unfortunately prevent them from running nonetheless. So I'll just say that the Gracchi are probably not the analogy you want for Edwards. They're the analogy nimh might want for Edwards.

georgeob1 wrote:
The Republicans have squandered the past years in valuing the exercise of power and its percs over the full application of the principles that got it for them. This has enabled the current parade of midgets to become a real threat.

Full agreement here. Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 15 Dec, 2007 10:05 pm
nimh wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
the rich tort lawyer/ Breck boy is hardly a contemporary reincarnation of the Gracci.

My ignorance is showing.. who were the Gracci?

Tiberius Gracchus and his younger brother Gaius were important social reformers in ancient Rome. The Wikipedia pages on them give a pretty good picture.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 07:54 am
Illinois Democrats favor Obama 2-1

http://i3.tinypic.com/85e2hpx.jpg
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 08:23 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 08:31 am
Well, that's what keeps changing, though. I'm not sure if there's a better negative to have, especially given recent trends. ("I like him but I don't know if he can win. Hey, look at that poll. Hey, look at that primary result. OK great, he CAN win, and if I vote for the guy I like I won't be wasting my vote!")
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 08:45 am
maporsche wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....


That will change. "Can my guy win?" is a function of the rolling-snowball 'momentum' thing.
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 290
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 06/29/2025 at 01:35:15