PDA

View Full Version : Elections Good Question: "Where's the landslide?"


Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 05:15 PM
100% dead-on...

For those of us who are leaning Obama, it should be cause for concern; if there is good news, though, it's that McCain isn't a bad alternative ....between the two (in terms of how they'd actually govern, as opposed to the campaign rhetoric and pandering we are getting....from both sides.)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/opinion/edbrooks.php

David Brooks: Where's the landslide?
By David Brooks

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim 2- or 3-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

His age probably has something to do with it. So does his race. But the polls and focus groups suggest that people aren't dismissive of Obama or hostile to him. Instead, they're wary and uncertain.

And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner. He opened his book "Dreams From My Father" with a quotation from Chronicles: "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers."

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, American voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.

Last week Jodi Kantor of The New York Times described Obama's 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. "The young law professor stood apart in too many ways to count," Kantor wrote.

He was a popular and charismatic professor, but he rarely took part in faculty conversations or discussions about the future of the institution. He had a supple grasp of legal ideas, but he never committed those ideas to paper by publishing a piece of scholarship.

He was in the law school, but not of it.

This has been a consistent pattern throughout his odyssey. His childhood was a peripatetic journey through Kansas, Indonesia, Hawaii and beyond. He absorbed things from those diverse places but was not fully of them.

His college years were spent on both coasts. He was a community organizer for three years but left before he could be truly effective.

He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things.

He was in Trinity United Church of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is in the U.S. Senate, but not of it. He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely.

And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal. He has sometimes opposed the Chicago political establishment, but is also part of it. He spoke at a rally against the Iraq war, while distancing himself from many anti-war activists.

This ability to stand apart accounts for his fantastic powers of observation, and his skills as a writer and thinker. It means that people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves reflected in Obama's eyes. But it does make him hard to place.

When we're judging candidates (or friends), we don't just judge the individuals but the milieus that produced them. We judge them by the connections that exist beyond choice and the ground where they will go home to be laid to rest. Andrew Jackson was a backwoodsman. John Kennedy had his clan. Ronald Reagan was forever associated with the small-town virtues of Dixon and Jimmy Carter with Plains.

It is hard to plant Obama. Both he and his opponent have written coming-of-age tales about their fathers, but they are different in important ways. McCain's "Faith of My Fathers" is a story of a prodigal son. It is about an immature boy who suffers and discovers his place in the long line of warriors that produced him. Obama's "Dreams From My Father" is a journey forward, about a man who took the disparate parts of his past and constructed an identity of his own.

If you grew up in the 1950s, you were inclined to regard your identity as something you were born with. If you grew up in the 1970s, you were more likely to regard your identity as something you created.

If Obama is fully a member of any club - and perhaps he isn't - it is the club of smart post-boomer meritocrats. We now have a cohort of rising leaders, Obama's age and younger, who climbed quickly through elite schools and now ascend from job to job. They are conscientious and idealistic while also being coldly clever and self-aware. It's not clear what the rest of America makes of them.

So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.

recxjake
08-05-2008, 05:19 PM
"But voters seem to be slow to TRUST a sojourner they cannot place"

Bingo.

Bowser
08-05-2008, 05:23 PM
It seems almost like some people are just trying to WILL Obama to lose. Has a presidential candidate EVER been under such a microscope?

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:32 PM
There have been like 20 threads on this the past week so I guess I'll say it again.

Obama doesn't have supporters who hate him like McCain does. Therefore, if you like him, you're probably supporting him. If you think he sucks, you aren't supporting him.

McCain also has people who genuinely like him as a candidate supporting him, but an overwhelming portion of his supporters don't like him and in a lot of cases hate him(think recxjake). I think 43% of his support in a recent poll was described as "lesser of two evils". That's a large portion of his voters that aren't going to sway much, at least to Obama's side. The danger for McCain is turnout. And since he knows he can't get people excited about his candidacy, he has to get people worried about the prospect of an Obama presidency(thus explaining why Obama is the star of all of McCain's ads).

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-05-2008, 05:33 PM
1) A sizable portion of the electorate still isn't paying attention

2) Most state-by-state electoral maps show Obama at 300-330 electoral votes. That's a pretty thorough ass kicking.

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 05:34 PM
It's on the media cutting room floor.

recxjake
08-05-2008, 05:35 PM
1) A sizable portion of the electorate still isn't paying attention

2) Most state-by-state electoral maps show Obama at 300-330 electoral votes. That's a pretty thorough ass kicking.

ROFL

Colorado 47.0 45.3 Obama +1.7
Virginia 47.3 46.3 Obama +1.0
Missouri 45.3 47.3 McCain +2.0
Michigan 46.3 42.0 Obama +4.3
Ohio 46.0 45.5 Obama +0.5
Florida 45.2 46.8 McCain +1.6

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-05-2008, 05:38 PM
ROFL

Colorado 47.0 45.3 Obama +1.7
Virginia 47.3 46.3 Obama +1.0
Missouri 45.3 47.3 McCain +2.0
Michigan 46.3 42.0 Obama +4.3
Ohio 46.0 45.5 Obama +0.5
Florida 45.2 46.8 McCain +1.6

Check the RCP, genius.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-05-2008, 05:38 PM
Check the RCP, genius.

By the way, that would put him at about 340.

recxjake
08-05-2008, 05:40 PM
Check the RCP, genius.

uhh that is the RCP... ROFL

recxjake
08-05-2008, 05:41 PM
By the way, that would put him at about 340.

Being up .5 to 1% is not an "ass kicking"... my point is that it is very very close.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:41 PM
ROFL

Colorado 47.0 45.3 Obama +1.7
Virginia 47.3 46.3 Obama +1.0
Missouri 45.3 47.3 McCain +2.0
Michigan 46.3 42.0 Obama +4.3
Ohio 46.0 45.5 Obama +0.5
Florida 45.2 46.8 McCain +1.6

Why did you pick that batch of states? Republicans won 5 of those states in 2004. Obama's winning 3 of them there and within striking distance in the other 2.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Check the RCP, genius.

At this point in the cycle in 2004, Kerry was leading too. Personally, I'm still leaning Obama, but I'm telling you....there is 4-6% that may swing the day of the election to McCain.

Disregard the "Bradley Effect" at your own peril, I guess. :shrug:

recxjake
08-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Why did you pick that batch of states? Republicans won 5 of those states in 2004. Obama's winning 3 of them there and within striking distance in the other 2.

Copied directly from www.realclearpolitics.com... the ones they have on the right side of the site.

If McCain wins those 5, he wins the election.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Why did you pick that batch of states? Republicans won 5 of those states in 2004. Obama's winning 3 of them there and within striking distance in the other 2.

"Bradley Effect" could make them a sweep for McCain...or close.

Not saying it will, but disregard it at your own peril.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:45 PM
Copied directly from www.realclearpolitics.com... the ones they have on the right side of the site.

I know you copied it. That's what you do.

My point was that isn't a great sign for McCain. Obama likely only needs to pick off one of those states(outside of Michigan). Those are all instances of McCain having to defend his own turf, and not looking particularly strong at the moment.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 05:53 PM
....Obama doesn't have supporters who hate him like McCain does. Therefore, if you like him, you're probably supporting him. If you think he sucks, you aren't supporting him...

:spock:

The only people who "hate" McCain, are folks who are transferring their anti-Republican Bush-hating vitriol to McCain. Maybe 20% of the population, at best.

And IMHO, there are a similar number of folks who harbor the same sentiments toward Obama....transferring the anti-Democrat liberal-hating zealotry to Obama, but because he's black....can't, or won't, say so publicly. Political correctness and all.....

:hmmm:

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:54 PM
The Messiah should be winning by 20%, he has the media behind him... crowds of 200,000, and more $$...

You have a warped idea about reality. I think Obama was only up 54% to 34% in a hypothetical matchup vs. Bush for a 3rd term. And it would likely be lower if it weren't for the "Bush Effect"(people too embarrassed to admit they'd vote for Bush again).

There's not going to be a popular vote landslide on a national scale. It's just not going to happen. If Obama wins by 3-4% in the General, that would result in a landslide in the electoral vote. When you're talking about 15-20% leads, it's just not rational.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 05:55 PM
Chuck Todd had a great analysis of this very point a couple of weeks ago that bears repeating.

Bush won in 04 by 3% points and had a 3-4 million popular votes than Kerry.

If Obama wins by more than 4% it will be a modern day landslide in the electoral college and he will win by 10-15 million popular votes.

So right now all the national polls minus Ramussen has Obama up by 4 or more and if you look at the state polls and also some of the sites that count electoral college votes the predictions are Obama will get over 300 EV votes fairly easy.

Now all that could change but for right now that is where it stands.

StcChief
08-05-2008, 05:56 PM
:spock:

The only people who "hate" McCain, are folks who are transferring their anti-Republican Bush-hating vitriol to McCain. Maybe 20% of the population, at best.

And IMHO, there are a similar number of folks who harbor the same sentiments toward Obama....transferring the anti-Democrat liberal-hating zealotry to Obama, but because he's black....can't, or won't, say so publicly. Political correctness and all.....

:hmmm:but will just vote for McCain in silence... The silent majority still runs the show. Deal with it Libs.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:56 PM
:spock:

The only people who "hate" McCain, are folks who are transferring their anti-Republican Bush-hating vitriol to McCain. Maybe 20% of the population, at best.

McCain's biggest f*cking supporter on this forum has said worse things about McCain than anyone on here. You can get into a semantics argument about "hate" all you'd like, but an overwhelming number of people who end up voting for McCain in November do not like him as a candidate.

And IMHO, there are a similar number of folks who harbor the same sentiments toward Obama....transferring the anti-Democrat liberal-hating zealotry to Obama, but because he's black....can't, or won't, say so publicly. Political correctness and all.....

:hmmm:

Huh? Those people aren't voting for Obama. :spock:

The people who I'm saying don't like McCain are people who are going to be voting for him anyway.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 05:57 PM
but will just vote for McCain in silence... The silent majority still runs the show. Deal with it Libs.


That's my sense as well; and it's the basis for the so-called "Bradley effect."

Taco John
08-05-2008, 05:58 PM
Right now the landslide is in the electoral college if you do the math there.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 06:00 PM
McCain's biggest f*cking supporter on this forum has said worse things about McCain than anyone on here. You can get into a semantics argument about "hate" all you'd like, but an overwhelming number of people who end up voting for McCain in November do not like him as a candidate.



Huh? Those people aren't voting for Obama. :spock:

The people who I'm saying don't like McCain are people who are going to be voting for him anyway.

Check McCain's negatives....they aren't too bad considering attitudes towards Reps, generally.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, MOST (not the libertarian anti-war, peacenik, libertarian lunatic fringe....but MOST) of those folks who "hate" McCain..wouldn't have ever considered voting for him either.

The "fringe" on either side, tends to neutralize the "other" side's fringe. No advantage, either way.

Mr. Kotter
08-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Right now the landslide is in the electoral college if you do the math there.

Too many toss-up state's within the MOE, and the "Bradley Effect" to say that.

Ask President John Kerry---his math in the popular, and electoral votes in July of 2004 was similar.

;)

recxjake
08-05-2008, 06:02 PM
Electoral College Obama McCain Toss Ups
RCP Electoral Count 238 163 137

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 06:03 PM
Right now the landslide is in the electoral college if you do the math there.

Yep

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama 289
McCain 239

Direckshun
08-05-2008, 06:16 PM
Great minds, Kotter. I ran across this article today and I was going to post it.

It's a subject of fascination to me, how everything essentially goes Obama's way and yet he only has a few points in the lead.

I like Brooks' psychological breakdown but I think the far more compelling answer is economics (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=188458).

Check out the chart there. It shows that as goes the economy, as goes the incumbent party. Right now the economy is lousy, but not SO lousy as to pummel McCain into submission.

It also shows that the incumbent party has never been "blown out" in the modern era.

Direckshun
08-05-2008, 06:17 PM
By the way, Kotter, I posted this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=188365) for you a couple days ago.

Taco John
08-05-2008, 06:17 PM
Electoral College Obama McCain Toss Ups
RCP Electoral Count 238 163 137


It looks close until you start looking at the historical voting patterns of the toss-up states. Pennsylvania and Michigan as supposedly toss-up states, except for the fact that Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican in 20 years. The same with Michigan. With those two states under his belt, that's 255 electoral votes (including the non-swing, obvious states). That's 15 electoral votes away from winning it all.

That means McCain has to win nearly ALL of the following states (losing even one means losing the election):

Nevada (Voted for Clinton twice)
Colorado
New Mexico (Voted for Clinton twice)
Missorah (Voted for Clinton twice)
Indiana
Ohio (Voted for Clinton twice)
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
New Hampsire

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 06:43 PM
Check McCain's negatives....they aren't too bad considering attitudes towards Reps, generally.

I don't care about McCain's negatives(particularly now). The people who dislike him aren't trashing him now. They're focusing their energy on Obama. That goes for your recxjake types as well as your Hannity/Limbaugh types, as well as a lot those on the religious right. They don't like McCain, but they're going to bite the bullet.

Obama does not have that same kind of group going for him, at the very least not to anywhere near the same degree.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, MOST (not the libertarian anti-war, peacenik, libertarian lunatic fringe....but MOST) of those folks who "hate" McCain..wouldn't have ever considered voting for him either.

You're hung up on "hate" for some reason. I'm talking about the recxjake kind of hate. The kind of hate that can be cured by winning the Republican nomination.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-05-2008, 08:50 PM
By the way Jake, your RCP poll if things split down the middle, with McCain winning Florida and Missouri, and losing Ohio

Obama 322
McCain 216.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 08:54 PM
Don't underestimate those bitter people clinging to guns and religion......

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 12:34 AM
Yep

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama 289
McCain 239

You are, among the many, who are ignoring and/or neglecting....the power of the "silent majority".....or otherwise known as, the "Bradley Effect"...

THE 'bellweathers' on election night will be NH and VA; if Obama wins both, he's on his way to a landslide and historic night, but if he loses even one of the two....it will be a VERY close (2000?) election. If he loses BOTH NH and VA....McCain will pull a Truman-like upset.

Write it down....

Keep ignoring the "Bradley Effect," at your own (and Obama's) peril. :shrug:

Don't underestimate those bitter people clinging to guns and religion......

Yup. There are many who are, and will continue to.....IMHO. :shrug:

:hmmm:

:hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 12:51 AM
Great minds, Kotter. I ran across this article today and I was going to post it.

It's a subject of fascination to me, how everything essentially goes Obama's way and yet he only has a few points in the lead....

I ALMOST posted the article and thread-starter you did a couple of days ago, although I missed yours....

Yeah, great minds DS. So sorry and sad for you, I guess. Heh. :)

Seriously, though; whichever "side" of this you are on....and, apparently, I'm one of he few "in the middle (leaning Obama; but, like McCain....but 'ready' for change---as long as it's not TOO much, too soon)...this will be a much, much closer election than it SHOULD BE....

than it should be....at least "on paper." :hmmm:

jAZ
08-06-2008, 12:55 AM
100% dead-on...

For those of us who are leaning Obama, it should be cause for concern; if there is good news, though, it's that McCain isn't a bad alternative ....between the two (in terms of how they'd actually govern, as opposed to the campaign rhetoric and pandering we are getting....from both sides.)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/opinion/edbrooks.php

David Brooks: Where's the landslide?
By David Brooks

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim 2- or 3-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 Electoral Votes By Independent Groups (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2974)

Added by Mark Nickolas (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2974/blog/&blogId=2974) on Aug 4, 2008 - add as a friend (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile//friends/&do=fReq&name=Mark%20Nickolas) | PM me (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile//pm/&to=Mark%20Nickolas)

With all the breathlessness over the minute movements in the irrelevant national polls, the one thing no one seems to be noticing is that the electoral map is still trending very poorly for John McCain (R).

I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:<TT>Obama McCain Margin</TT>
<TT>Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) 322 216 Obama +106
Electoral-Vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) 316 209 Obama +107
FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) 303 235 Obama + 68
Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/) 284 147 Obama +137</TT> <TT>AVERAGE 306 202 Obama +104</TT>
If you think about the reporting of the fluctuating state polls lately that show a tight race, all of them involve red states that McCain can't afford to lose: Colorado, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Alaska, Georgia, etc.

Despite the media narrative that a number of blue states are competitive, the truth is none of the recent polling shows McCain making any significant inroads in the blue states. Consider:
In Michigan (http://www.pollster.com/polls/mi/08-mi-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain had not led in any poll since May;
In Pennsylvania (http://www.pollster.com/polls/pa/08-pa-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain has not led in any poll April, and a Republican poll released last week showed McCain trailing by 9, in line with the current Pollster.com average;
In New Hampshire (http://www.pollster.com/polls/nh/08-nh-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain has not led in any poll since April;
In Minnesota (http://www.pollster.com/polls/mn/08-mn-pres-ge-mvo.php), while one recent poll showed McCain within the margin of error, no other poll in the past month (including one poll taken more recently) has him within 12 points.So, while the media breathlessly reports the national tracking polls which shows a close race, the state polling is still showing a pretty significant Obama lead.

jAZ
08-06-2008, 01:01 AM
You are, among the many, who are ignoring and/or neglecting....the power of the "silent majority".....or otherwise known as, the "Bradley Effect"...

THE 'bellweathers' on election night will be NH and VA; if Obama wins both, he's on his way to a landslide and historic night, but if he loses even one of the two....it will be a VERY close (2000?) election. If he loses BOTH NH and VA....McCain will pull a Truman-like upset.

Write it down....

Keep ignoring the "Bradley Effect," at your own (and Obama's) peril. :shrug:



Yup. There are many who are, and will continue to.....IMHO. :shrug:

:hmmm:

:hmmm:
Just to be clear, your opinions here are pretty sound, IMO.

As it turns out, it matters not what voters ignore. You are confusing sound advice to the campaign with pointless advice for supporters.

And campaigns on both sides are endlessly diligent at accounting for every last detail. Obama's campaign won the primary because they were particularly good at the tactical adjustments and political "ground game". Hillary lost because she "ignored" everything after Super Tuesday.

I'd say Obama has earned the benefit of the doubt on not overlooking anything.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 01:12 AM
Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 Electoral Votes By Independent Groups (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2974)

Added by Mark Nickolas (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2974/blog/&blogId=2974) on Aug 4, 2008 - add as a friend (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile//friends/&do=fReq&name=Mark%20Nickolas) | PM me (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile//pm/&to=Mark%20Nickolas)

With all the breathlessness over the minute movements in the irrelevant national polls, the one thing no one seems to be noticing is that the electoral map is still trending very poorly for John McCain (R).

I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:<TT>Obama McCain Margin</TT>
<TT>Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10) 322 216 Obama +106
Electoral-Vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) 316 209 Obama +107
FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) 303 235 Obama + 68
Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/) 284 147 Obama +137</TT> <TT>AVERAGE 306 202 Obama +104</TT>
If you think about the reporting of the fluctuating state polls lately that show a tight race, all of them involve red states that McCain can't afford to lose: Colorado, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Alaska, Georgia, etc.

Despite the media narrative that a number of blue states are competitive, the truth is none of the recent polling shows McCain making any significant inroads in the blue states. Consider:
In Michigan (http://www.pollster.com/polls/mi/08-mi-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain had not led in any poll since May;
In Pennsylvania (http://www.pollster.com/polls/pa/08-pa-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain has not led in any poll April, and a Republican poll released last week showed McCain trailing by 9, in line with the current Pollster.com average;
In New Hampshire (http://www.pollster.com/polls/nh/08-nh-pres-ge-mvo.php), McCain has not led in any poll since April;
In Minnesota (http://www.pollster.com/polls/mn/08-mn-pres-ge-mvo.php), while one recent poll showed McCain within the margin of error, no other poll in the past month (including one poll taken more recently) has him within 12 points.So, while the media breathlessly reports the national tracking polls which shows a close race, the state polling is still showing a pretty significant Obama lead.

In fairness, Justin....Kerry led in July of 2004, by similar "projected" margins....go back to the 2004 RCP numbers.

Yes, Obama "leads" at the moment....in such projections. However, such projections can change (as they DID in 2004,) and they do NOT take into acount the possible/potential "Bradley Effect."

I, honestly, hope you (and others) are "right;" and that Obama will "cruise" to victory. However, in my life I've witnessed a lot of wasted "optimism" that McGovern would do MUCH better than he did....and that even in 2000 and 2004....that Democratic candidates would "win." They didn't. :shrug:

Direckshun
08-06-2008, 01:59 AM
Actually polling stations have gone out of their way to account for the Bradley Effect, Kotter.

You'd know that if you actually clicked on the link I provided you. It's been minimalized.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 02:01 AM
Actually polling stations have gone out of their way to account for the Bradley Effect, Kotter.

You'd know that if you actually clicked on the link I provided you. It's been minimalized.


They have tried; but, to my assessment....have failed.

Can you cite one poll, where methodology clearly and persuasively accounted for the "Bradley effect" in even....one poll?

Seriously? I mean, BEYOND mentioning it.... :shrug:

jAZ
08-06-2008, 02:18 AM
In fairness, Justin....Kerry led in July of 2004, by similar "projected" margins....go back to the 2004 RCP numbers.

Yes, Obama "leads" at the moment....in such projections. However, such projections can change (as they DID in 2004,) and they do NOT take into acount the possible/potential "Bradley Effect."

I, honestly, hope you (and others) are "right;" and that Obama will "cruise" to victory. However, in my life I've witnessed a lot of wasted "optimism" that McGovern would do MUCH better than he did....and that even in 2000 and 2004....that Democratic candidates would "win." They didn't. :shrug:
I have been saying for longer than anyone else on this board, AFAIK... this election is going to be very close, just like each of the last 2. No matter whether Obama is up or McCain is up. There will NOT be a "cruise to victory" by either candidate, IMO.

My point is to make clear that by one measure it's a close race, by another measure it's close in a way that makes it a wide lead.

Neither result is reliable at this point. Not when Obama is up. Not when McCain is up.

And that's why rexcjake is such a tool.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 02:26 AM
I have been saying for longer than anyone else on this board, AFAIK... this election is going to be very close, just like each of the last 2. No matter whether Obama is up or McCain is up. There will NOT be a "cruise to victory" by either candidate, IMO.

My point is to make clear that by one measure it's a close race, by another measure it's close in a way that makes it a wide lead.

Neither result is reliable at this point. Not when Obama is up. Not when McCain is up.

And that's why rexcjake is such a tool.

I'd agree for the most part....except "IF" McCain goes up, and stays up across the board (outside the MOE of average polling---say 3-4%)....McCain is VERY likely at that point to "win."

OTOH, Obama needs to be "up" by 4-6 points, for him to really "win."

jAZ
08-06-2008, 02:32 AM
I'd agree for the most part....except "IF" McCain goes up, and stays up across the board (outside the MOE of average polling---say 3-4%)....McCain is VERY likely at that point to "win."

OTOH, Obama needs to be "up" by 4-6 points, for him to really "win."

If McCain is up 4% with a week to go in the election, Obama is in trouble. If McCain is up 4% next week, it means nothing.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 02:39 AM
If McCain is up 4% with a week to go in the election, Obama is in trouble. If McCain is up 4% next week, it means nothing.


Agreed. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2008, 10:52 AM
:spock:


RCP average for Obama has dropped nearly 3% in the last three weeks....

I knew I had been "out of the loop," for awhile but I found that surprising.

little jacob
08-06-2008, 11:10 AM
it definitely means something for him to have lost all the advantage he had after beating Hillary. it means for one thing that as voters learned more he hasn't gained more support, and also that his presumption tour of the world didn't do much to change anyone's mind, if anything, they might have been put off by it.

jAZ
08-06-2008, 12:09 PM
Interesting...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207322.php

All or Nothing
From a friend in DC Republican circles ...

I think you may be missing a key element of McCain's strategy. Remember, he has NO national ground game to counter Obama's vaunted field organization. No Bush-style 72 hour GOTV operation, no large and disciplined staff -- just a small core staff and media operation. In order to win without a ground game he literally has to destroy Obama as a viable alternative -- it isn't enough to just get close. That means the ads will be harder edged, more plentiful and more relentless than we've ever seen. I think Mark McKinnon realized that early on, and didn't want to be the guy to do to Obama what has to be done to win, as that person will become a political scourge (a la Atwater) when all is said and done, even if it works.
--Josh Marshall

jAZ
08-06-2008, 12:17 PM
it definitely means something for him to have lost all the advantage he had after beating Hillary. it means for one thing that as voters learned more he hasn't gained more support
You might be way off base on this statement.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/06/1249422.aspx

First thoughts: Obama builds map lead
Posted: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:22 AM by Domenico Montanaro

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro

*** Obama builds on map lead: Obama has expanded his lead over McCain in NBC’s latest electoral map. Obama now has 217 electoral votes in his column versus 189 for McCain, building on his 210-189 edge from last month. There are 132 votes in the toss-up category. Here are the changes from last month, all of them moving in Obama’s direction: 1) Iowa moves from toss-up to Lean Obama, continuing this trend of the Illinois senator over-performing in the "region" of Illinois; 2) New Jersey moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama; and 3) Oregon moves from Lean Obama to Likely Obama. In another year, both of those states would not have moved so early, but it's pretty clear the GOP and McCain will not be seriously contesting either one.

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (190 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MN, WI (27 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, MI, MO, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA (132 votes)
Lean McCain: AK, GA, IN, MT, NC, ND, SD (53 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (136 votes)

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26055503#26055503" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>and also that his presumption tour of the world didn't do much to change anyone's mind, if anything, they might have been put off by it.
That was not unexpected, though surely unwelcome.

***SPRAYER
08-06-2008, 12:27 PM
Barack, would you like me to push in your stool?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RaHocMySH9M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RaHocMySH9M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
08-06-2008, 12:35 PM
Landslide

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3cGxlZjMWU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3cGxlZjMWU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

***SPRAYER
08-06-2008, 12:38 PM
Mudslide in B.O.'s case.

StcChief
08-06-2008, 02:04 PM
Mudslide in B.O.'s case.

so Bark O. is the NEW Mudslide Slim....:evil:

BucEyedPea
08-06-2008, 02:05 PM
Mudslide in B.O.'s case.

Hmmmm....yummmmm!

http://www.outofthefryingpan.com/cocktails/images/mudslide.frozen.sm.jpg

Now take that Buc hat off....arrgggh!

Calcountry
08-06-2008, 02:29 PM
It seems almost like some people are just trying to WILL Obama to lose. Has a presidential candidate EVER been under such a microscope?Has a candidate ever RAN for president for 2 whole freaking years?

Calcountry
08-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Being up .5 to 1% is not an "ass kicking"... my point is that it is very very close.
Dude, he was talking about an electoral college ass kicking.

Whenever a Democrat wins that way, that is all they focus on, but when a Republican wins EC, it is a stolen election.

Chief Henry
08-06-2008, 02:42 PM
Barack, would you like me to push in your stool?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RaHocMySH9M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RaHocMySH9M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Where in the hell did you find that ?

***SPRAYER
08-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Where in the hell did you find that ?

Youtube Donald Young Trinity United

:evil:

little jacob
08-06-2008, 02:48 PM
Has a candidate ever RAN for president for 2 whole freaking years?

he was running when he spoke at the convention in 2004

Baby Lee
08-06-2008, 03:03 PM
Where in the hell did you find that ?

http://www.math.psu.edu/nbrown/1955_doc_a.jpg
Nate Scott!!!

tiptap
08-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Dude, he was talking about an electoral college ass kicking.

Whenever a Democrat wins that way, that is all they focus on, but when a Republican wins EC, it is a stolen election.

I have no doubt that Obama will win the popular vote nationwide. The stolen part is cast against such a democratic vote. The SC has struck a wide path since its involvement in the State of Florida's election. That is different than the last election.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2008, 10:50 AM
I have no doubt that Obama will win the popular vote nationwide. The stolen part is cast against such a democratic vote. The SC has struck a wide path since its involvement in the State of Florida's election. That is different than the last election.

Well, the Florida SC did the same thing, instead of routing to where it legally belonged: in the Florida state legislature. If a state can't choose a winner it falls to legislative supremacy. But it's okay to have an activist SC at the state level? Pot meet kettle by the Dems on this one.

jAZ
11-05-2008, 12:42 AM
Umm... bumb.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-05-2008, 12:44 AM
LMAO
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

irishjayhawk
11-05-2008, 12:44 AM
But I'm voting for Obama /Kotter

irishjayhawk
11-05-2008, 12:45 AM
At this point in the cycle in 2004, Kerry was leading too. Personally, I'm still leaning Obama, but I'm telling you....there is 4-6% that may swing the day of the election to McCain.

Disregard the "Bradley Effect" at your own peril, I guess. :shrug:

ROFL

Double whammy. "I'm leaning towards Obama" and "Disregard Bradley Effect at own peril"

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-05-2008, 12:46 AM
Kotter belongs to me, now.

BigChiefFan
11-05-2008, 12:48 AM
Kotter belongs to me, now.Good that double talker needs a dose of reality.:D

jAZ
11-05-2008, 12:49 AM
Too many goodies in this thread to quote any one with my bump.

BigRedChief
11-05-2008, 09:38 AM
Gots to bump
http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-Applause.gif

PRIEST
11-05-2008, 09:40 AM
Gots to bump
http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-Applause.gif






Double Bump ROFLROFLROFL

RINGLEADER
11-05-2008, 10:56 AM
The Dems did well, but they could have done much better. That's a very slim silver lining for the Republicans. I'm glad they retained enough of a buffer to preserve the partisanship in the Senate though I'm sure on certain issues the Dems will be able to peel off enough of the liberal-leaning GOP members to pass certain parts of their agenda.

It's true of every election but this election turned (as of 8:35am) on about 400,000 votes. No sour grapes here, but I think most would agree this was just about as perfect as things can align (in terms of candidate, campaign, mood of the country, etc.) and it still came down to about .35% of the total electorate.

Also interesting is that we're apparently not going to get anywhere near the 131,000,000 votes that many predicted. Right now the totals of overall votes are looking remarkably close to 2004. But there are certain states like North Carolina and Virginia and (almost) Florida where McCain got more votes than Bush but Obama did MUCH better on that previously red turf. Another interesting note is that it appears that Ohio didn't cast as many votes this time around for either candidate.

So, IMO, a very impressive win by a very impressive candidate but the Dems embrace this as a repudiation of the center-right leanings of America at their own political peril.

the Talking Can
11-05-2008, 11:02 AM
The Dems did well, but they could have done much better. That's a very slim silver lining for the Republicans. I'm glad they retained enough of a buffer to preserve the partisanship in the Senate though I'm sure on certain issues the Dems will be able to peel off enough of the liberal-leaning GOP members to pass certain parts of their agenda.

It's true of every election but this election turned (as of 8:35am) on about 400,000 votes. No sour grapes here, but I think most would agree this was just about as perfect as things can align (in terms of candidate, campaign, mood of the country, etc.) and it still came down to about .35% of the total electorate.

Also interesting is that we're apparently not going to get anywhere near the 131,000,000 votes that many predicted. Right now the totals of overall votes are looking remarkably close to 2004. But there are certain states like North Carolina and Virginia and (almost) Florida where McCain got more votes than Bush but Obama did MUCH better on that previously red turf. Another interesting note is that it appears that Ohio didn't cast as many votes this time around for either candidate.

So, IMO, a very impressive win by a very impressive candidate but the Dems embrace this as a repudiation of the center-right leanings of America at their own political peril.

wtf?


2008 turnout shatters all records
By ANDY BARR | 11/5/08 4:19 AM EST
Text Size:

More than 130 million people (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html) turned out to vote Tuesday, the most ever to vote in a presidential election.

With ballots still being counted in some precincts into Wednesday morning, an estimated 64 percent of the electorate turned out, making 2008 the highest percentage turnout in generations.


Obama won an electoral landslide, and Indiana and N. Carolina could still be added to the tally.

He won by 6%, with over 50%. This is a big an ass kicking as anyone could ask for.

A complete and total repudiation of Republicans and Republican-ism. Complete.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 11:06 AM
This is certainly one instance in which I'm quite happy to be wrong.

Enjoy it; it happens much less with me, than with most of you folks. :D

Saggysack
11-05-2008, 11:07 AM
wtf?





Obama won an electoral landslide, and Indiana and N. Carolina could still be added to the tally.

He won by 6%, with over 50%. This is a big an ass kicking as anyone could ask for.

A complete and total repudiation of Republicans and Republican-ism. Complete.


You expected something different from Kelsey Grammer?

Taco John
11-05-2008, 11:07 AM
Enjoy it; it happens much less with me, than with most of you folks. :D

ROFL


Yeah, like anybody here believes that, dippy.

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 11:10 AM
The economic freefall changed everything....as I saw 2 months ago:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=191752



:D

RINGLEADER
11-05-2008, 11:29 AM
wtf?

Obama won an electoral landslide, and Indiana and N. Carolina could still be added to the tally.

He won by 6%, with over 50%. This is a big an ass kicking as anyone could ask for.

A complete and total repudiation of Republicans and Republican-ism. Complete.

I'm not trying to diminish anything. I'm just looking at the results on the screen now and comparing them to how the state returns looked in 2004. If all the websites showing the election vote results in 2008 are wrong then many apologies.

That's why I said that the results were current as of 8:35am. If there are another 12,000,000 votes out there to be counted to get to the number in the story you quoted then great. There's only a handful of states that aren't fully supported according to CNN and I don't see how you get there but maybe their numbers are off.

The electoral landslide is without doubt -- the senate and house gains, while more than modest, didn't represent the sea change that some pundits predicted. That may be because getting to 60 senate votes was never a reality to begin with but, again as I said before, it is a SLIM silver lining for the Republicans.

RINGLEADER
11-05-2008, 11:37 AM
You expected something different from Kelsey Grammer?

;)

irishjayhawk
11-05-2008, 12:37 PM
This is certainly one instance in which I'm quite happy to be wrong.

Enjoy it; it happens much less with me, than with most of you folks. :D

You still think people actually buy this tripe?

StcChief
11-05-2008, 12:52 PM
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

nice map by precinct/county..... I guess it continues to show an electoral win. but country is still pretty RED.

Ultra Peanut
11-05-2008, 12:55 PM
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

nice map by precinct/county..... I guess it continues to show an electoral win. but country is still pretty RED.The county bubbles are by far the best way to get a representative visual.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2e2qxle.jpg

Mr. Kotter
11-05-2008, 01:31 PM
You still think people actually buy this tripe?


You are becoming a real dick about this, you know?

Honestly, what part of what I said...does your twisted mind think is "tripe?"

Mecca
11-05-2008, 01:34 PM
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

nice map by precinct/county..... I guess it continues to show an electoral win. but country is still pretty RED.

That's an amusing take, more people live in big cities and suburbs than they do tiny podunk hillbilly America that's just how it works.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-05-2008, 01:50 PM
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

nice map by precinct/county..... I guess it continues to show an electoral win. but country is still pretty RED.

Electoral votes aren't allocated by acreage, dumbass.