spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 06:46 pm
William Hill have suspended betting.

That's ominous.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 06:48 pm
spendius wrote:
I've got dough on Mr McCain at 6 to 1.


You'll be happy to hear that SurveyUSA has McCain 64% Obama 28% Undecided 8%.

Much luck to you.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 06:49 pm
When they do that with horseracing we all assume that the favourite has been cast in its box.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 07:28 pm
From the Pollster.com blog:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

Quote:
March 21, 2008

Wait a Week

Yesterday, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn released a polling memo highlighting "some pretty big changes" in polling numbers that suggest "a strong swing in momentum in the race to Hillary." Later in the afternoon, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper posted some analysis by Peyton Craighill of the ABC News Polling Unit:

Mark Penn's note is full of overblown claims based on current polling. He's cherry picking numbers from recent polls. Much of his claim of a Clinton swing is based on the latest tracking data from Gallup in which Clinton is now ahead by 7 points. If you go back two more days Obama has a 7-point lead in a separate USA Today/Gallup poll. CBS has a new poll out today that shows a close 46-43 percent Obama-Clinton race. The CBS poll also has the match ups with McCain at 48-43 percent for Obama-McCain and 46-44 percent for Clinton-McCain. We see little indication of a shift to Clinton. Of the nine polls cited in his note, five of them are not airworthy.

Tapper adds: "'Airworthy' is a term our Polling Unit uses for polls so poorly done we are discouraged from mentioning them on air." I believe Tapper left out the word "not" in that sentence. Polls considered "not airworthy" are those ABC does not mention on air, and that category includes polls conducted using an automated methodology, such as those by SurveyUSA (ABC details its standards here).



Without reopening the long debate on automated polls (a topic we've written about often), we should note that the latest round of SurveyUSA polls do generally show Obama's support worsening in general election matchups against McCain. Of course, all of those surveys were fielded last weekend (March 14-16) while the Jeremiah Wright sound-bites played endlessly on the cable news network but before Obama's speech on Tuesday. Probably the wisest advice on how to interpret poll numbers this week comes from some commentary yesterday by NBC News political director Chuck Todd:

Don't use the polls this week to judge where Obama is and what kind of damage...is it long term or is it short term. I'd wait a week and look at the polls in a week and then we'll know how badly this [hurt Obama] because there has certainly been critical mass as far as attention has been concerned on the speech and how he is trying to pivot and move on. So if there is an uptick then we will know that what we are seeing is bottom, what we are seeing today is the worst, and if today is bottom, the Obama campaign probably thinks they can recover.

0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 08:39 pm
REACTIONS TO SEN. OBAMA'S SPEECH AND THE REV. WRIGHT CONTROVERSY March 20, 2008
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:05 pm
I think most voters are looking at Obama realistically; that his message to unite the country is an ideal that would be almost impossible to achieve with the split in congress.

Most voters reelect their rep in congress over and over; a self-defeating habit of special interests that wins out in the end rather than Americans.

Maybe, some day, we'll learn that a split congress means very little will be accomplished that Americans want.

Iraq is a good example.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think most voters are looking at Obama realistically; that his message to unite the country is an ideal that would be almost impossible to achieve with the split in congress.

Most voters reelect their rep in congress over and over; a self-defeating habit of special interests that wins out in the end rather than Americans.

Maybe, some day, we'll learn that a split congress means very little will be accomplished that Americans want.

Iraq is a good example.


If more people are seeing that the liklihood of Obama uniting the country is getting smaller then his appeal is also getting smaller.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:44 pm
I'm afraid so.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:52 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm afraid so.


I think this is where McCain is really dangerious for Obama. McCain has a very public record of reaching across the isle like Obama says he would (Obama doesn't have a very good record here).

If Americans are realizing (finally!) that Obama's words do not automatically translate into reforming Washington's politics........then you need someone who has shown that they are effective at breaching the divide.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 09:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think most voters are looking at Obama realistically; that his message to unite the country is an ideal that would be almost impossible to achieve with the split in congress.

The question is can Obama unite himself, let alone the country? This is all so sad, but the Democratic Party is so deserving. After all, they earned it. Maybe all of this is restoring my faith in the old saying, you reap what you sow?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 10:56 pm
maporsche wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm afraid so.


I think this is where McCain is really dangerious for Obama. McCain has a very public record of reaching across the isle like Obama says he would (Obama doesn't have a very good record here).

If Americans are realizing (finally!) that Obama's words do not automatically translate into reforming Washington's politics........then you need someone who has shown that they are effective at breaching the divide.


And you would want that person to be mentally competent and not a promise of four more years of Bush. Obama will destroy McCain assuming they go head to head. These head to head polls mean nothing now. Wait until it's a fiar fight. One against one. BTW even Hillary will destroy McCain. Sadly, the old man is suffering from some kind of neuroligical problem.

We can't afford to have a vegetable as CIC.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 10:57 pm
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I think most voters are looking at Obama realistically; that his message to unite the country is an ideal that would be almost impossible to achieve with the split in congress.

The question is can Obama unite himself, let alone the country? This is all so sad, but the Democratic Party is so deserving. After all, they earned it. Maybe all of this is restoring my faith in the old saying, you reap what you sow?


WTF are you babbling about?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:11 pm
Looks like the Foxes are still conducting "McCarthy hearing" styled witch hunts of guilt by association. Now they're taking aim at another prominent Illinois reverend and state senator, James Meek who recently endorsed Obama and using another Obama supporter, who happens to also be a reverend, to do so.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339770,00.html

A full transcript is at the link above.

Excerpt:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:19 pm
blatham wrote:
eoe wrote:
The media damn sure won't allow it. They have fed on the Wright story for almost a week now and, from the looks of things on CNN and MSNBC last night, they intend to keep on feeding straight through the weekend. It's just tooooooo good to let go. Too good, too juicy to release. It's astounding.


In a general sense, we know why 'the media' took up this story and continues to run with it... drama, conflict and ratings (thus advertiser dollars).

But there's another key element in this continuing coverage as well and that is the influence of Fox, rightwing radio, and the rest of that propaganda enterprise on 'mainstream' media.

It is a uni-directional influence. If some matter arises which would reflect very positively on Obama (like his speech, for example) and if the mainstream media were to broadly laud that matter (as they did), the coverage at Fox or on radio would not be influenced in a pro-Barack direction. Modern rightwing media is uninterested, totally and completely, with any matter or stance which might move consensus towards support of a Dem or of a non-conservative notion/value/outcome. That would violate their purpose (which is not reportorial).


This one takes the cake.

CNN and MSNBC are hanging on to the Wright story because of Fox and Rush Limbaugh.

What's next?

Fox and Limbaugh are responsible for:

Global warming?
The spread of Africanized bees?
Turmoil in the Middle East?
The heartbreak of Psoriasis?
The sub-prime mortgage crisis?
Oprah's ever fluctuating weight?
That Americans don't take Canadian liberals seriously?
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:35 pm
Obama Aide Compares Bill Clinton to McCarthy
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. Hillary must have finally told Bill Richardson that he wasn't on the short list for her VEEP or Secretary of State. . . or . . . he is convinced she can't get the nomination. He has held off making his endorsement for a very long time because he wants one of those appointments so very badly. Richardson wants to be President and I think he wants a high level position to get the necessary exposure and name recognition, etc. to be viable the next time around. So he's hung his hat on Obama.


He's convinced she can't get the nomination and he was deeply offended by Bill Clinton asking him to pass the guacamole during the Superbowl.

Hopefully we'll never know what the deal was for him to announce his endorsement at this particular moment when the Obama campaign (and Roxxy) is desperate for a change of subject for "God Damn America," and "Typical White Person."

Richardson held out too long. To the extent that his endorsement increases support for Obama among hispanic voters the time to bargain was before the Texas primary. Where, now, will his endorsement bring in latino votes for Obama? Pennsylvania? Indiana? West Virginia? Kentucky? Guam?

Oh wait, there's North Carolina and Puerto Rico!

Having recently lived in North Carolina I can attest, from an "on the ground" perspective (which conforms with more objective statistics) that The Old North State is indeed a preferred destination (behind California and Texas) for Mexican immigrants. The problem for a Richardson supported Obama in NC is that most of the visitors from Mexico are illegal and thus cannot (at least for now) vote.

As for Puerto Rico, this may come as a surprise to some but Spanish speaking peoples are not a monolithic group. Sure, they can, generally, be relied upon to have some degree of preference for a Spanish speaking candidate, but really no more so then folks living south of the Mason-Dixon line can be relied upon to vote for someone who regularly uses "Y'all."

The fact of the matter is that Obama is not Spanish speaking (He had a controversial Spanish teacher in HS and thus was never in class when she made her outrageous comments. Tough to pick up a language when you're out of class 50% of the time), and Richardson is of Mexican, not Puerto Rican heritage. I married into a Puerto Rican family and I can assure you that Puerto Ricans consider themselves a people quite distinct from Mexicans, Columbians, Cubans (especially Cubans) and any other Spanish speaking group.

Puerto Rican Democrats may, actually, overwhelmingly vote for Obama, but if so, it will have nothing to do with a Richardson endorsement.

So what did Bearded Bill have to offer Obama? Not much more than a possible media respite from the Wright fiasco. What's the quid pro quo?
I guess it depends on the desperation level of the Obama campaign, but it's hard to imagine the market for Richardson's endorsement will bear more than an ambassadorship to Spain, or maybe France.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:59 pm
After hearing speech, 52% less likely to vote for Obama!
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Fri 21 Mar, 2008 11:59 pm
Finn dAbuzz quoting Blatham wrote:


This one takes the cake.

CNN and MSNBC are hanging on to the Wright story because of Fox and Rush Limbaugh.

What's next?

Fox and Limbaugh are responsible for:

Global warming?
The spread of Africanized bees?
Turmoil in the Middle East?
The heartbreak of Psoriasis?
The sub-prime mortgage crisis?
Oprah's ever fluctuating weight?
That Americans don't take Canadian liberals seriously

?


Well, Fox and Limbaugh probably aren't responsible (at least not entirely) for Global warming, the spread of Africanized bees, turmoil in the Middle East, the heartbreak of Psoriasis, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Oprah's ever fluctuating weight, or the assertion that Americans don't take Canadian liberals seriously; but I do know that Fox and Limbaugh are responsible for CNN's Headline News to give in to their jonesing for higher profits and pander to the lowest common denominator in giving that Limbaugh wannabe, Glenn Beck, a Limbaugh style hate-fest show; and MSNBC attempting to cash in on a Bill O'Reilly shout-fest show with its own versions staring their very own pale O'Reilly copy, John Scarborough. But, alas, when it comes to hate and screaming, Limbaugh and Fox are second to none.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 22 Mar, 2008 12:02 am
blatham wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmmm. Hillary must have finally told Bill Richardson that he wasn't on the short list for her VEEP or Secretary of State. . . or . . . he is convinced she can't get the nomination. He has held off making his endorsement for a very long time because he wants one of those appointments so very badly. Richardson wants to be President and I think he wants a high level position to get the necessary exposure and name recognition, etc. to be viable the next time around. So he's hung his hat on Obama.


Them Latinos. Selfish, lazy. If a good or noble thought ever enters their head, they would have stolen it from a white person's garage.


This is just a very stupid retort that, predictably, involves the Liberal's weapon of choice - accusations, implicit or explicit, of racism.

The degree of Richardson's venality, as suggested by Foxfyre, has nothing to do with his Mexican heritage and everything to do with the fact that he is a professional politician.

That was the stupid part of your retort; here's the idiotic:

The implication that Richardson's endorsement was a "good or noble" consideration.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 22 Mar, 2008 12:06 am
It must be a very frightening prospect for some:

President Barack Obama
Vice President Bill Richardson
Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
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 665
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.38 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 01:52:08