What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

NBC/WSJ

The poll offers some evidence that Sen. Obama could be helped by picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate. Offered a choice between an Obama-Clinton ticket and a Republican ticket of Sen. McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 39% of previously undecided voters said they would choose the Democrats, with 26% favoring the Republicans and the rest still undecided. By 47% to 37%, Democratic voters favor an Obama-Clinton ticket; the margin is greater among women.

Obama 47

McCain 41

Obama/Clinton 51

McCain/Romney 42
I know if Obama picks Clinton he gets my vote. If not it's McCain to the house
Dude. You and some other Hill fanatics already tried to hold the party hostage with your votes. It didnt work then and it wont work now. Give it up.
A woman scorned...
apparently. Except this one missed the memo that McCain is as close to anti-wimmens rights as it gets these days

 
NBC/WSJ

The poll offers some evidence that Sen. Obama could be helped by picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate. Offered a choice between an Obama-Clinton ticket and a Republican ticket of Sen. McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 39% of previously undecided voters said they would choose the Democrats, with 26% favoring the Republicans and the rest still undecided. By 47% to 37%, Democratic voters favor an Obama-Clinton ticket; the margin is greater among women.

Obama 47

McCain 41

Obama/Clinton 51

McCain/Romney 42
I know if Obama picks Clinton he gets my vote. If not it's McCain to the house
Dude. You and some other Hill fanatics already tried to hold the party hostage with your votes. It didnt work then and it wont work now. Give it up.
A woman scorned...
apparently. Except this one missed the memo that McCain is as close to anti-wimmens rights as it gets these days
Dont try and be reasonable. That has nothing to do with "A woman scorned..."

They are confirming the long time misogynistic remark and they don't care.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Webb - 20.3%
Just caught him last night on Daily Show. Seems safe and boring as hell.
Boring? He's not a funny guy, but he's pretty fiery, isn't he?I like him.
Hannity & Colmes (I know) is reporting that Webb made statements sympathetic to the confederacy.
So have I. Doesn't mean I plan on restarting the War or that I support slavery.
That's it, you're off the short list.
I was that close :confused:
 
Someone mentioned Rep. Chuck Hagel as a VP. I'd be down with that. One of the few Republicans I respect.
I could live with that.
I hadn't really looked up much on Hagel in a long time, but this quote on Wikipedia is a surprise to me:"In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. He also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee."Vietnam Vet, born in small town Nebraska... was a lobbyist for 4 years in the late 70's though. Member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban affairs committee, Foreign Relations committee, Select Committee on Intelligence.I personally like these quotes a lot:"To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." -Nov. 2005"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president." -Dec. 2005 in regards to PATRIOT Act"National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party." - Jan. 2006
 
Someone mentioned Rep. Chuck Hagel as a VP. I'd be down with that. One of the few Republicans I respect.
I could live with that.
I hadn't really looked up much on Hagel in a long time, but this quote on Wikipedia is a surprise to me:"In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. He also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee."Vietnam Vet, born in small town Nebraska... was a lobbyist for 4 years in the late 70's though. Member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban affairs committee, Foreign Relations committee, Select Committee on Intelligence.I personally like these quotes a lot:"To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." -Nov. 2005"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president." -Dec. 2005 in regards to PATRIOT Act"National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party." - Jan. 2006
Hagel is a GOPer I can get behind. Now we don't agree on everything by a long shot but he is truly willing to do what he thinks is right party be damned. I gotta respect that. I would be happy to see him on the ticket but I don't think he'll go there. He would be a pariah in GOP circles if Obama won.I am still hoping for Richardson or Sebeilas
 
Bad news: Obama's bump smaller than hoped for.

Good news: He's leading in key demographics.

LINK

Republicans expressed a sigh of relief upon seeing last night that the first WSJ/NBC poll taken since Obama wrapped up the nomination only had him up six.

Many feared the bounce would be far larger -- and it still may yet be as he consolidates support.

But getting beyond the topline, the news is not good for McCain and the GOP.

As Chuck Todd and Co. explain in First Read, Obama has taken a lead in some key demographics that he lagged in during the primary.

Hispanics: 62-28%

Women: 52-33% (it's much closer, but he still leads by 7% among white women)

Catholics: 47-40%

Blue-Collar: 47-42%

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad news: Obama's bump smaller than hoped for.

Good news: He's leading in key demographics.

LINK

Republicans expressed a sigh of relief upon seeing last night that the first WSJ/NBC poll taken since Obama wrapped up the nomination only had him up six.

Many feared the bounce would be far larger -- and it still may yet be as he consolidates support.

But getting beyond the topline, the news is not good for McCain and the GOP.

As Chuck Todd and Co. explain in First Read, Obama has taken a lead in some key demographics that he lagged in during the primary.

Hispanics: 62-28%

Women: 52-33% (it's much closer, but he still leads by 7% among white women)

Catholics: 47-40%

Blue-Collar: 47-42%
If he keeps that percentage and more importantly gets them to turnout in record numbers...McCain is in serious trouble and will end up having to play defense even in places like Texas much less NM or CO. It should also be noted that there are pretty big Hispanic pop's in places like NC and Va.
 
I'll say it again: Obama is going to landslide win.
Wayyyy, too early for that as no one should underestimate the republican machine. Until it's in the bag, I have every reason to believe they have tricks still at their disposal to ruin Obama.
yeah lets not get over confided.I'm reading a fascinating book about this subject its called "the tortoise and the hare"but I think your right about this not even being close.
 
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:goodposting: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.

 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:hophead: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting tidbit that I don't want to start a new thread on:

McCaskill called Obama middle-class tax cut “massive” and stressed that those making “under $150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind” -- not payroll tax, not capital gains, “not a single tax,” Hodes said.“I want to clear up any misconception that Sen. Obama is proposing an across-the-board capital gains tax,” Hodes said, adding that only those making $250,000 or more a year would see a capital gains tax increase. Hodes said for families making up to $100,000, they could expect to see a $1,300 decrease in their taxes.
 
adonis said:
Clayton Gray said:
I'll say it again: Obama is going to landslide win.
Wayyyy, too early for that as no one should underestimate the republican machine. Until it's in the bag, I have every reason to believe they have tricks still at their disposal to ruin Obama.
I think both candidates are on thin ice and could see their candidacies implode between now and November.With Obama, it could be any of his associates, like Wright, giving him an anti-American slam.With McCain, all it takes is one bout of exhaustion or the mildest of chest pains or something along those lines and he's done.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:scared: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Its not a question of intelligence, its a matter of you just making sheeyat up. i don't have the #s, but i seriously doubt that primary winners get a 13pt bump in the polls.You're allowed your opinion, and i highly encourage you to continue to spout off whatever Rush tells you to. It just confirms what most everyone already thinks of you...whats that saying, better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're an idiot...

ETA: :lmao: thanks Adonis, "Spiderman, Spiderman. If he cant make it up, no one can"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting tidbit that I don't want to start a new thread on:

McCaskill called Obama middle-class tax cut “massive” and stressed that those making “under $150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind” -- not payroll tax, not capital gains, “not a single tax,” Hodes said.“I want to clear up any misconception that Sen. Obama is proposing an across-the-board capital gains tax,” Hodes said, adding that only those making $250,000 or more a year would see a capital gains tax increase. Hodes said for families making up to $100,000, they could expect to see a $1,300 decrease in their taxes.
what is going to happen to those who make $150,000 to $250,000? Anything?
 
Interesting tidbit that I don't want to start a new thread on:

McCaskill called Obama middle-class tax cut “massive” and stressed that those making “under $150,000 a year would see no tax increase of any kind” -- not payroll tax, not capital gains, “not a single tax,” Hodes said.“I want to clear up any misconception that Sen. Obama is proposing an across-the-board capital gains tax,” Hodes said, adding that only those making $250,000 or more a year would see a capital gains tax increase. Hodes said for families making up to $100,000, they could expect to see a $1,300 decrease in their taxes.
what is going to happen to those who make $150,000 to $250,000? Anything?
I think they will see tax increases of some kind, but not of the kind that people making above 250,000 will see.95% of the country makes below $150,000.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:no: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.
In a June 3rd, 2005 poll by USA Today/CNN/Gallup, Kerry was winning with 49% of the vote to Bush's 43% of the vote. Bush took the lead permanently on Oct. 14th, and held throughout to victory. Basically, Bush exploded past Kerry after the Convention's in late July/early August and held the lead through until the end except for a couple tied polls.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:no: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Its not a question of intelligence, its a matter of you just making sheeyat up. i don't have the #s, but i seriously doubt that primary winners get a 13pt bump in the polls.You're allowed your opinion, and i highly encourage you to continue to spout off whatever Rush tells you to. It just confirms what most everyone already thinks of you...whats that saying, better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're an idiot...

ETA: :lmao: thanks Adonis, "Spiderman, Spiderman. If he cant make it up, no one can"
Is that how we're playing this game now - if you don't like the poll numbers, then it's made up? If it's bad for Obama, it's made up? Everything I wrote previous came from polling. You just didn't like it.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:) I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.
In a June 3rd, 2005 poll by USA Today/CNN/Gallup, Kerry was winning with 49% of the vote to Bush's 43% of the vote. Bush took the lead permanently on Oct. 14th, and held throughout to victory. Basically, Bush exploded past Kerry after the Convention's in late July/early August and held the lead through until the end except for a couple tied polls.
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that one.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:goodposting: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.
In a June 3rd, 2005 poll by USA Today/CNN/Gallup, Kerry was winning with 49% of the vote to Bush's 43% of the vote. Bush took the lead permanently on Oct. 14th, and held throughout to victory. Basically, Bush exploded past Kerry after the Convention's in late July/early August and held the lead through until the end except for a couple tied polls.
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that one.
Here's a link to a June 23-June 27, 2004 CBS poll that puts Kerry and Bush right even with each other.
 
Just for spiderman, as I still say that polls now don't mean much:Rasmusen Reports:Obama - 47%McCain - 41%Obama Favorability:Favor - 56Unfavor - 42McCain Favorability:Favor - 54Unfavor - 44Full article:

AdvertisementDaily Presidential Tracking PollThursday, June 12, 2008Email a Friend Email to a FriendAdvertisementThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When “leaners” are included, Obama still holds a six-point advantage, 50% to 44%. Obama has clearly received a modest bounce since clinching the nomination. Prior to his final victory on June 3, he was essentially even with McCain. Now, Obama has enjoyed a five-to-eight point advantage on each of the past seven days (see recent daily results). New polling shows that the Obama bounce has also given the Democrat his largest lead of the year in Iowa, Washington, and Michigan.Tracking polls are updated at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release data looking at the role and influence of lobbyists. Also, new polling data will be released from North Carolina.Obama currently leads by eleven points among women but trails by a single point among men (including leaners). Thirty-nine percent (39%) of women say they are certain they will vote for Obama in November. Another 10% say they would vote for him today but could change their mind, and 3% are leaning towards voting for Obama. For McCain those numbers are 30% certain, 8% who could change their mind, and 3% leaning towards voting for him.Thirty-six percent (36%) of men are certain they will vote for McCain while 34% say the same about Obama. See other demographic notes (Note: Premium Members can review crosstabs for the last full-week of polling).Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. The numbers for McCain are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Among women, Obama is viewed favorably by 57%, McCain by 52%. Among men, McCain earns positive reviews from 56%, Obama from 54%.Opinions are held more strongly about Obama--33% have a Very Favorable opinion of the Democratic hopeful while 27% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion. For McCain, those numbers are 18% Very Favorable and 18% Very Unfavorable. As with the topline numbers, these ratings reflect a slight softening for Obama and little change for McCain (see recent daily favorables).Forty-five percent (45%) trust McCain most when it comes to economic issues and managing the economy while 42% prefer Obama. Those figures have changed little over the past week. On national security issues such as the War in Iraq and the War on Terrorism, 49% have more trust in McCain while 41% prefer Obama. Those figures have moved a couple of points in Obama’s direction since he wrapped up the nomination (crosstabs available for Premium Members).Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a 60.9 % chance of winning. The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats leading in states with 200 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are included, the Democrats enjoy a 260-240 Electoral College lead (see summary of recent state-by-state results).This year’s campaign has already seen far more volatility than Election 2004. Neither Bush nor Kerry ever enjoyed an eight point lead during that campaign and the overall voter preferences barely moved from January through Election Day. As part of the 2008 volatility, perceptions of the two candidates are changing rapidly, much more rapidly than four years ago. More voters are coming to see Barack Obama as politically liberal while more also see McCain as politically conservative (see other demographic notes).Fifty percent (50%) of voters say federal spending will increase if Obama is elected and 33% say the same will happen if McCain wins. Forty-five percent (45%) say taxes will increase if there is a President Obama. Twenty-eight percent (28%) say tax hikes will result from a McCain Administration (crosstabs available for Premium Members).Voters see a clear distinction between the two leading candidates on the issue of Iraq. Eighty-one percent (81%) say Obama is more interested in getting troops home from Iraq than finishing the mission. Seventy-four percent (74%) say that McCain is more interested in finishing the mission (crosstabs available for Premium Members). An earlier survey found that 52% of voters say getting the troops home is the higher priority.Forty-three percent (43%) of voters say McCain is a better leader than Obama while 38% hold the opposite view. When asked which candidate has personal values closer to their own, 43% name McCain and 42% say Obama (crosstabs available for Premium Members).Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.
 
Don't worry, Spidey cant even find a link to a 2008 poll, let alone one from 2005. They all just mysteriously appear as "facts" in his posts.

I'm still waiting for the mea culpa regarding the lack of a bump? Apparently, in your world Spidey, a bump of 6 pts isnt really a bump at all. Lets not lose sight of the fact that you've failed as a Limbaugh Zombie. You're thinly veiled efforts are amateurish at best, you will now be demoted to AA Ball in the Bush leagues (pun intended). Please pack your things and pick up your bus ticket

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
Clayton Gray said:
I'll say it again: Obama is going to landslide win.
Wayyyy, too early for that as no one should underestimate the republican machine. Until it's in the bag, I have every reason to believe they have tricks still at their disposal to ruin Obama.
yeah lets not get over confided.I'm reading a fascinating book about this subject its called "the tortoise and the hare"but I think your right about this not even being close.
Just making a prediction. :goodposting: It won't be close.
 
adonis said:
Clayton Gray said:
I'll say it again: Obama is going to landslide win.
Wayyyy, too early for that as no one should underestimate the republican machine. Until it's in the bag, I have every reason to believe they have tricks still at their disposal to ruin Obama.
yeah lets not get over confided.I'm reading a fascinating book about this subject its called "the tortoise and the hare"but I think your right about this not even being close.
Just making a prediction. :goodposting: It won't be close.
Just looked at the InTrade numbers and you're dead on.[/Maurile]
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:thumbup: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.
In a June 3rd, 2005 poll by USA Today/CNN/Gallup, Kerry was winning with 49% of the vote to Bush's 43% of the vote. Bush took the lead permanently on Oct. 14th, and held throughout to victory. Basically, Bush exploded past Kerry after the Convention's in late July/early August and held the lead through until the end except for a couple tied polls.
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that one.
The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll numbers cited by Spiderman are correct. First chart here.
 
Spiderman said:
Poll #1Before the Iowa Primary, Barack Obama was seen as "Liberal" by just 47% of the population. As of today, that number has shifted to 67% of the population, with a full 37% defining him as "very Liberal", a shift that corresponds to Obama's performance in the primaries. The polling data shows a gradual shift in this direction that has not stopped yet. Everyone other than MSNBC will tell you that this is bad news for Obama.

McCain has shifted in the other direction with 31% calling him Conservative in December and 67% today. But just 19% call McCain "Very Conservative" compared to Obama's "Very Liberal" at 37%. McCain is seen as the more moderate of the two candidates at this point, by a large margin.

Poll #2

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the Presidential race. Nearly 70% said that reporters try to assist their favorite candidate win. Liberals are the least likely to see reporters as advocates for a candidate, while 65% - 17% of Moderates and 83% - 7% of Conservatives felt that this was the case. 68% of voters say a Democrat has gotten the best coverage from the media compared to just 22% saying Republicans have. In the Fall, 44% say reporters will actively try to help Obama while just 13% believe they will try to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters are 3x more likely to understand the media will be biased toward Obama. Of the undecided voters, they were 8x more likely to say Obama will get preferential treatment in the Fall, all but proving that the media will try to influence these voters, but they are expecting bias and will likely be unaffected.

Poll #3

41% of voters nationwide say that Obama is too inexperienced to be President, compared to just 30% of voters that feel McCain is too old. Older voters, who historically speaking are those most likely to go to the polls, say Obama is too inexperienced by a rate of 2-1. Younger voters are more likely to call McCain too old. Nearly 50% of voters say that McCain will be a Bush 3rd term, while the same figure say that Obama will bring an excessively liberal, big government solution to our nations problems.

Poll #4

Obama has a 6% lead on John McCain after his mini-surge at being named the Democratic Nominee. He now leads 50-44%. Obama has 81% of Democrats and McCain has 83% of Republicans. 30% of all voters said they can change their vote before election day. Nearly 80% of all voters like McCain's proposal for town hall meetings in place of typical media led debates. The Economy continues to rank as the #1 issue to voters. On which candidate is likely to raise government spending, Obama has nearly 50% of all voters saying he will increase government spending, making him almost twice as likely to expand the size of the Government. Obama is also twice as likely to raise taxes than McCain.
:lmao: I'm sorry, where's the part where you eat crow for previously saying that [paraphrase] "Obama is in trouble since he didnt get a bump in polls after winning the primary" [/paraphrase]

I'm sure the straws you grasp at will become even more frivolous and insane as November draws closer. So, please be sure to reply to this post with even more meaningless filler. Unless of course you want to take your foot out of your mouth long enough to say you were wrong
I wish I could be as intelligent as you, and I'll keep this simple since I wouldn't want to divert you from your crush on Obama, but if you look at historical bump numbers, Obama is getting about 5-7 point jump....Historically speaking, it's been in the 10-13 point range. I stick to my opinion that this was a mini-surge, when compared to history.
Really?
Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%

May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%

June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%

July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%

September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%

Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%

Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%
Bush's biggest lead was never bigger than 4 points, and he never trailed Kerry. Not sure where your info is coming from, but this is from NBC/WSJ.ETA: OH, and Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.
In a June 3rd, 2005 poll by USA Today/CNN/Gallup, Kerry was winning with 49% of the vote to Bush's 43% of the vote. Bush took the lead permanently on Oct. 14th, and held throughout to victory. Basically, Bush exploded past Kerry after the Convention's in late July/early August and held the lead through until the end except for a couple tied polls.
I'm gonna have to call shenanigans on that one.
The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll numbers cited by Spiderman are correct. First chart here.
The numbers might be, but I'm not sure why they were polling in 2005 :shrug: .
 
Election ’08: Markets and Models

By Justin Wolfers

June 13, 2008

It may be surprising to learn that one of the leading scholars studying U.S. politics is in fact a Swedish economist. But the advantage of this unusual state of affairs is that during my recent trip to Stockholm, I had a chance to catch up with David Strömberg.

David and I spent an interesting afternoon exploring data from both political prediction markets, and his own econometric model for forecasting elections. The Strömberg model is, in my view, the leading quantitative election-forecasting model — both parsimonious and sophisticated. By building up forecasts state-by-state based on a slew of economic and political factors (details here), his model can not only predict who will win, but also the likelihood that each state will be pivotal. In turn, this makes David’s approach ideal for campaigns trying to figure out where to direct campaign resources.

We have written up our findings for my latest WSJ column.

The headline: Prediction markets currently give the Democrats a 63 percent chance of winning; the Stromberg model puts the odds at 65 percent, reflecting the fact that “the Democrats are likely to win 51 percent of the popular vote, and to win the Electoral College 294-244.”

The reason: “In turn, this Democratic edge reflects the combination of a weak economy and incumbency effects in the wake of an unpopular Bush presidency, which are likely to disadvantage Sen. McCain. Weak local conditions and liberal swings in the electorate suggest that Democrats are likely to do well in key states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Prediction markets are less bullish about the Democrats’ chances in Florida.”

An insight: “For all the attention paid by pundits to opinion polls, our analysis suggests that, at this point in the election cycle, they simply aren’t very informative. As such, we give them very little weight. But as the election gets closer, polls … will warrant greater weight.”

What we ignore: Strömberg’s model “excludes those themes that have dominated recent media coverage: the personalities, age, race, and gender of the candidates, as well as their former preachers, and possible VP candidates. Vague concepts like ‘electability’ don’t figure into the equation.” Even so, the model matches prediction market prices pretty well, “suggesting that markets are more informed by economic and political fundamentals than broader campaign narratives.”

A nailbiter: “The Strömberg model also suggests that there is a one-in-four chance that the 2008 race will come down to the decisions of less than one-in-100 voters in just one state, a situation that would be similar to Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004.”

Where to look? “Which states are likely to be decisive? Our list of battleground states are headed by the usual suspects [Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan], but campaign strategists take note: Beyond the big four, a few surprises emerge. Colorado, Virginia, and California are next-most likely to determine the election.”

You can read the full article here.
 
Gore endorsing Obama tonight:

Dear [Leeroy],

A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.

That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.

If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.

Thank you for joining me,

Al Gore

LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
 
I'll say it again: Obama is going to landslide win.
Wayyyy, too early for that as no one should underestimate the republican machine. Until it's in the bag, I have every reason to believe they have tricks still at their disposal to ruin Obama.
yeah lets not get over confided.I'm reading a fascinating book about this subject its called "the tortoise and the hare"but I think your right about this not even being close.
Just making a prediction. :bag: It won't be close.
Just looked at the InTrade numbers and you're dead on.[/Maurile]
It's over Johnny.
 
Don't worry, Spidey cant even find a link to a 2008 poll, let alone one from 2005. They all just mysteriously appear as "facts" in his posts.I'm still waiting for the mea culpa regarding the lack of a bump? Apparently, in your world Spidey, a bump of 6 pts isnt really a bump at all. Lets not lose sight of the fact that you've failed as a Limbaugh Zombie. You're thinly veiled efforts are amateurish at best, you will now be demoted to AA Ball in the Bush leagues (pun intended). Please pack your things and pick up your bus ticket
His bump was small. It was a bump - I'm not arguing that he got a bump, but based upon recent races, it was expected to be 10-13 points.I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh by the way, but I do provide accurate polling information.
 
Don't worry, Spidey cant even find a link to a 2008 poll, let alone one from 2005. They all just mysteriously appear as "facts" in his posts.I'm still waiting for the mea culpa regarding the lack of a bump? Apparently, in your world Spidey, a bump of 6 pts isnt really a bump at all. Lets not lose sight of the fact that you've failed as a Limbaugh Zombie. You're thinly veiled efforts are amateurish at best, you will now be demoted to AA Ball in the Bush leagues (pun intended). Please pack your things and pick up your bus ticket
His bump was small. It was a bump - I'm not arguing that he got a bump, but based upon recent races, it was expected to be 10-13 points.I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh by the way, but I do provide accurate polling information.
It doesn't matter much to me whether his bump was 6 or 10, so I'm not going to argue the implications of what it was, or what it should've been, but I am curious as to where you get your 10-13 point reference.What recent races are you referring to? Were they similar in length, intensity, and timing as this one? Honestly, just curious how many datapoints were used to get the 10-13 point bump you're talking about, what years you're referencing, and if you had any links to support the claim, I'd be interested in reading them.
 
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
 
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
That is a very odd choice, since Doyle was outrageously incompetent in her position as Clinton's campaign manager. She kept the fact that the campaign was hemorraghing money and didn't have anywhere near the amounts coming in to justify the rate of expenditure to herself. A lot was made at the time that Doyle must have been terrified to tell Sen. Clinton the truth, and what kinds of insights that showed into Clinton's personality, temperament, and leadership style.
 
Sulla said:
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
Coming to Fox chyron: Obama Pimp Slaps Hillary!
 
Orange Crush said:
Sulla said:
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
That is a very odd choice, since Doyle was outrageously incompetent in her position as Clinton's campaign manager. She kept the fact that the campaign was hemorraghing money and didn't have anywhere near the amounts coming in to justify the rate of expenditure to herself. A lot was made at the time that Doyle must have been terrified to tell Sen. Clinton the truth, and what kinds of insights that showed into Clinton's personality, temperament, and leadership style.
No kidding. So much has been said about her only qualification was her loyalty to Hillary.
 
Orange Crush said:
Sulla said:
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
That is a very odd choice, since Doyle was outrageously incompetent in her position as Clinton's campaign manager. She kept the fact that the campaign was hemorraghing money and didn't have anywhere near the amounts coming in to justify the rate of expenditure to herself. A lot was made at the time that Doyle must have been terrified to tell Sen. Clinton the truth, and what kinds of insights that showed into Clinton's personality, temperament, and leadership style.
No kidding. So much has been said about her only qualification was her loyalty to Hillary.
My take is she was used as a scapegoat for Clintons problems. Which really didn't change afer she left BTW. That's why the animosity.
 
Sulla said:
I don't know if this has already been posted, but it is a potential insight into the Democratic VP selection process:

Former Clinton Campaign Manager Joins Obama Team

The Obama campaign is about to make its first big hire out of the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager until she was ousted in a staff shake up in February, will join Mr. Obama’s campaign as the chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate – whoever he (or she) will be, campaign officials said

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06...ins-obama-team/
Apparently the Clinton camp isn't taking this very well:
Solis Doyle -- who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself -- has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job.

At least that's how Clinton loyalists see it. "It's a slap in the face," Susie Tompkins Buell, a prominent Clinton backer, said in an interview. "Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It's a message. We get it." She said it was a "calculated decision" by the Obama team to "send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...ml?hpid=topnews
A "thanks, but no thanks" from Obama to Hillary?
Hmmm...someone that submarined the Clinton campaign suddenly given a cush job in the Obama campaign? Sounds like Barry might have had a mole on the inside.He "Out Clintoned" the Clintons :popcorn:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top