Obama '08?

snood wrote:

Some substantiation of the very incendiary things you say Coburn said and did would help me

Copy/paste the phrases or relevant key words into Google. Or do an A2K search; I posted news about each of those things here before, with links.

snood wrote:

but in any case - would you rather that Obama chastened him by ignoring him and not (as you put it) "offering him respect" and not have useful legislation push through? Isn't it about choosing which battles are worth fighting?

I dunno. Like I said, I'm ambivalent about it. Yes, I think the bill they look likely to push through is a good and useful one. But yes, Id rather have Democratic Congressmen ignore the most extreme radicals and focus on collaborating with cross-aisle colleagues who at least are not hateful and/or insane - there's plenty of those. So I dunno. I'll cheer at the passing of the bill but I'll feel very uncomfortable about Obama's choice of partner here.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Well, how do you know that Zogby doesn't have it right and the other polls are off the mark?

Hypothetically possible but not likely.

If, say, 12 polls with established methodologies all have one's job approval at, say, 35-40% but a thirteenth poll has it at 30%, or 45%, it's common practice to consider the latter an "outlier". If the thirteenth poll consistently is off x% on what all the other polls are saying, to say that it "errs" on one side of the question like Thomas did is completely standard practice.

(Mind you, I did not include Zogby in my graph because it phrased the question differently so got entirely different results altogether, so I cant say much about Zogby in particular, but in the case of Fox the trend is clear.)

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Extra-terrestrial or not, Zogby has gotten the last three Presidential elections accurate to within a point. No other pollster can make that claim.

The last tracking poll that Zogby published before the 2004 Presidential elections had Bush at 48% and Kerry at 47%. So it was off a total of 4 percentage points. See this overview of mine here from the day before the elections.

Mind you, Zogby also made a personal prediction of the electoral result - but we're talking about the reliability of his poll results, not his opinion piece - plus, his personal prediction in question was that Kerry would capture 311 electoral votes to President Bush's 213, with two states too close to call.

The pollsters who had the 2004 presidential results closest to what they turned out to be were Pew, Tarrance and TIPP (see this overview).

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

He should have been home helping the failing schools in the largest city in his state- Chicago. Yet, he wastes tax payer money( Yes, some of the money he used to go to Africa was tax-payer money)

Senators are not just in Congress to defend their local constituency's interests; foreign policy, too, is among their responsabilities.

BernardR wrote:

It is clear to me that Snood does not follow the news: Obama fell on his face in Africa. [..]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Obama loses 'favorite son' status in Kenya by Bogonko Bosire

Rather a weird headline, that. The critical Obama may have lost his status of favour in the Kenyan government, but that might only have made him more popular among the Kenyan population.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Some substantiation of the very incendiary things you say Coburn said and did would help me, but in any case - would you rather that Obama chastened him by ignoring him and not (as you put it) "offering him respect" and not have useful legislation push through? Isn't it about choosing which battles are worth fighting?

Check out this thread for Coburn's views on abortionists.

Now, to be sure, Coburn doesn't want to execute all abortionists. As a doctor, Coburn has performed two abortions himself, so his stance is a bit more nuanced than that.

On the other hand, Coburn is one of those small-government conservatives who thinks that the state is not the solution to our problems but rather the main cause of them. His sponsorship of a bill that mandates greater governmental accountability is, I think, in line with his general way of thinking. He is genuinely committed to shrinking the government and making it less intrusive, just as he is genuinely weird when it comes to social issues. That his interests and those of Obama coincide in this one bill is not so surprising when you look at Coburn's record.

0 Replies

My stance here is informed to some degree by personal experience. It is oftentimes the case that I have to ally myself with someone I consider unscrupulous or otherwise objectionable, in order to accomplish a goal I consider higher than the goal of expressing my objections.

I think it is very much a question of "the good of the many", in the case of Coburn and Obama. By foregoing partnership with Coburn and holding out for a 'more acceptable' legislator, Obama would not only not accomplish the goal of pushing through helpful legislation, but he would also not in any way change Coburn or Coburn's views.

0 Replies

Gotta say, snood makes sense here.

0 Replies

On another thread here, there's notation of the alliance to stop the extention of the Patriot Act wherein Phyllis Shafley and the ACLU snuggle together.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Well, how do you know that Zogby doesn't have it right and the other polls are off the mark?

Hypothetically possible but not likely.

If, say, 12 polls with established methodologies all have one's job approval at, say, 35-40% but a thirteenth poll has it at 30%, or 45%, it's common practice to consider the latter an "outlier". If the thirteenth poll consistently is off x% on what all the other polls are saying, to say that it "errs" on one side of the question like Thomas did is completely standard practice.

OK, let me downgrade the last sentence of that assertion. I overreached. <nods> Change it into:

If, say, 12 polls with established methodologies all have one's job approval at, say, 35-40% but a thirteenth poll has it at 30%, or 45%, it's common practice to consider the latter an "outlier". If the thirteenth poll consistently is off x% on what all the other polls are saying, to say that it "errs" on one side of the question like Thomas did therefore seems only logical.

0 Replies

Hillary dropped 10% in half a year - but its all going to the "Not Sure" category. Oh, and Edwards is dropping.

Polling Data (link)

If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were:

Code:

                Aug'06  Mar'06  Sep'05

 

Hillary Clinton   32%     43%     42%

 

Al Gore           15%     12%     11%

 

John Kerry        13%     10%     14%

 

John Edwards       9%     11%     14%

 

Joseph Biden       4%      4%      5%

 

Wesley Clark       4%      4%      1%

 

Mark Warner        2%      3%      1%

 

Evan Bayh          2%      2%     n.a.

 



 

Not sure          18%     10%      8%

Source: Opinion Dynamics / Fox News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 900 registered American voters, conducted on Aug. 29 and Aug. 30, 2006. Margin of error for the sample of registered Democratic voters is 5 per cent.

0 Replies

I wish they'd start including Obama on those things. What if that extra 8 percent in the "not sure" column are people who would want to vote for him?

Since Warner is my kinda-sorta #2 choice after Obama, sad to see him so low, too. (Half of Clark's numbers? Geesh.)

0 Replies

Well, Edwards, Biden, Clark and Warner are all actively working on their presidential run, they're all declared candidates or they might as well be, working the primary states and net roots as they have done for months now. Obama is not of the Hillary/Gore/Kerry status - he is after all just a first-time senator, not a former Democratic Presidential candidate - so as long as he keeps denying he is considering a run, you cant really expect them to put him on. Thats the downside of laying low for a while still.

0 Replies

Oh I know, it wasn't a "what's wrong with them??!" observation, it was a "gee, it would sure be nice if we had this additional data, oh well" observation.

0 Replies

The primaries often surprise us, despite the polls. No one knew who Clinton and Carter were before they started winning them.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The primaries often surprise us, despite the polls. No one knew who Clinton and Carter were before they started winning them.

Too bad, they ever found out. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Too bad about Kerry, since it would be fun to swiftboat the scumbag again. Still hasn't released all of his military records, has he?

0 Replies

Nimh wrote:

Rather a weird headline, that. The critical Obama may have lost his status of favour in the Kenyan government, but that might only have made him more popular among the Kenyan population.
end of quote
Sure, that might have made him a favorite to run as local "witch doctor" too> Read the article. He lost face in Africa!!!!!!

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to remind Nimh again--since he is the author of this thread.

I noted that the only reason Obama won in Illinois was that he had another African-American opposing him. An African-American who was also a carpet bagger. Obama would have been crushed if Senator Fitzgerald had run again.

Then Nimh published a ridiculous poll which included a huge representation of the Illinois voters( 600 in all). That same poll explained in its footnotes that there were always people who would not respond to the poll. Those, I AM SURE, were people eager to praise Obama.

I predicted that ALL of the African-American candidates who are running for statewide office(Senator or Governor) who either do not have a majority of the voters in the area they will be representing come from the African-American voting block will LOSE!

My thesis is that African-Americans will NOT win elections in the USA unless they run in districts where the majority of the voters are AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

The ONLY EXCEPTION to this would be if an African-American would run against another African-American as occurred in Illinois when Obama ran against Keyes!!

I hope you made note of this- Nimh!!!

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Too bad about Kerry, since it would be fun to swiftboat the scumbag again. Still hasn't released all of his military records, has he?

He's been too busy working in the "pickle factory".

0 Replies

Nihm wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BernardR wrote:
He should have been home helping the failing schools in the largest city in his state- Chicago. Yet, he wastes tax payer money( Yes, some of the money he used to go to Africa was tax-payer money)
Nihm wrote:
Senators are not just in Congress to defend their local constituency's interests; foreign policy, too, is among their responsabilities.
end of quote-

Really? SPECIFICALLY WHAT ASPECT OF FOREIGN POLICY WAS HE ATTENDING TO ON HIS VACATION TO AFRICA?????

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know