PDA

View Full Version : General Politics IBD/Tipp - McCain 44.6 Blackkarlmarx 46.7


Bootlegged
11-03-2008, 01:21 PM
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series13.aspx?src=POLLTOPN

Date McCain Obama Not Sure Spread Details
11/2 44.6% 46.7% 8.7% Obama +2.1 View
11/1 43.4% 47.9% 8.7% Obama +4.5 View
10/31 43.8% 48.2% 8.0% Obama +4.4 View
10/30 43.6% 47.7% 8.7% Obama +4.1 View
10/29 43.9% 46.9% 9.2% Obama +3.0 View
10/28 43.7% 47.7% 8.6% Obama +4.0 View
10/27 44.2% 47.0% 8.8% Obama +2.8 View
10/26 43.3% 46.5% 10.1% Obama +3.2 View
10/25 41.9% 45.8% 12.2% Obama +3.9 View
10/24 42.3% 45.8% 11.9% Obama +3.5 View
10/23 43.7% 44.8% 11.6% Obama +1.1 View
10/22 42.0% 45.7% 12.3% Obama +3.7 View
10/21 40.9% 46.9% 12.1% Obama +6.0 View
10/20 41.4% 46.7% 11.9% Obama +5.3 View
10/19 41.5% 46.6% 11.9% Obama +5.1 View
10/18 39.8% 47.2% 13.0% Obama +7.3 View
10/17 40.6% 45.9% 13.5% Obama +5.3 View
10/16 41.6% 45.2% 13.2% Obama +3.6 View
10/15 41.9% 45.2% 12.9% Obama +3.3 View
10/14 41.9% 44.8% 13.3% Obama +3.0 View
10/13 42.7% 44.8% 12.5% Obama +2.1 View





About the IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll

Since October 13th, Investor's Business Daily (IBD) and the TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP) have been conducting the IBD/TIPP Election 2008 Tracking Poll.

The table above shows results for a two-way race between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama among likely voters, based on the following question:

Poll Question: If the 2008 election for U.S. president were held today and the following were candidates, for whom would you vote? Would you say Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain?


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

"Most Accurate Pollster Of The Campaign Season"

An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed TIPP was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season, coming within three-tenths of a percentage point of Bush’s actual margin of victory. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com.


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







Press Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Site Map Home
© Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 01:23 PM
So this "most accurate (Republican) pollster" has McCain losing by a sizable margin.

Congratulations?

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 01:33 PM
If he wins PA then those people are friggin' dopes. He is on tape saying he wants to bankrupt an American industry (coal) so electricity costs skyrocket.

You can't make this shit up.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 01:36 PM
If he wins PA then those people are friggin' dopes. He is on tape saying he wants to bankrupt an American industry (coal) so electricity costs skyrocket.That would have been damning if your desperate spin were even remotely reflective of reality.

Fortunately for America, the right's spin has lost its luster after the clusterfuck of the past 8 years.

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 02:05 PM
The Master of Chump Change
Obama is once again giving new meaning to the term "chump change." Quoth the Moonbat Messiah:

Well, right now, [those making at least $250,000] are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars … that's chump change, that's nothing.
As Hot Air points out:

At $250,000, an additional 3.6% isn't chump change. It's an extra $9,000 that goes to the federal government on top of what they already take. That money could go to the college funds for his own children, or get invested in businesses that create jobs, or just get spent and create even more jobs for others in the community. Instead, it will go to Washington DC, get filtered through ever-growing bureaucracies, and perhaps a tenth of it will actually go to any purpose — if that.
But from the point of view of the massive government Obama promises to bloat, the $thousands you sweat for are just drops in a fetid ocean of waste.

Mecca
11-03-2008, 02:05 PM
Are you the cut and paste master?

Pablo
11-03-2008, 02:06 PM
I'd bet $100 Bootlegged had never even heard of Karl Marx before this election.

triple
11-03-2008, 02:07 PM
8.7% is a whole lot for 1 day before.

Taco John
11-03-2008, 02:07 PM
The Master of Chump Change
Obama is once again giving new meaning to the term "chump change." Quoth the Moonbat Messiah:

Well, right now, [those making at least $250,000] are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars … that's chump change, that's nothing.
As Hot Air points out:

At $250,000, an additional 3.6% isn't chump change. It's an extra $9,000 that goes to the federal government on top of what they already take. That money could go to the college funds for his own children, or get invested in businesses that create jobs, or just get spent and create even more jobs for others in the community. Instead, it will go to Washington DC, get filtered through ever-growing bureaucracies, and perhaps a tenth of it will actually go to any purpose — if that.
But from the point of view of the massive government Obama promises to bloat, the $thousands you sweat for are just drops in a fetid ocean of waste.

You do understand that when you act like a moonbat yourself, it takes the sting off of it when you call other people moonbats... right?

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 02:09 PM
You do understand that when you act like a moonbat yourself, it takes the sting off of it when you call other people moonbats... right?His neverending deluge of posts like that are why it's hard to fathom how you can even possibly consider Hamas and SHTSPRAYER to be two sides of the same coin.

Mecca
11-03-2008, 02:09 PM
I'd bet $100 Bootlegged had never even heard of Karl Marx before this election.

I still think anyone who makes a Marx or Marxist type of reference should have to read and recite the communist manifesto.

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 02:11 PM
You O-bots are dumber than I thought.

Pablo
11-03-2008, 02:12 PM
I still think anyone who makes a Marx or Marxist type of reference should have to read and recite the communist manifesto.I'm not that hardcore about it; but I at least had to read and study, write a paper, and be tested over Marx in my History of Economic Thought class.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 02:13 PM
You O-bots are dumber than I thought.oh i get it now

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 02:19 PM
oh i get it now

Hey Peabrain, your boy is toast:

Just released via Fox News, a statement from Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association:

The message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

Mecca
11-03-2008, 02:20 PM
Fox news is a great source I tell you.

Pablo
11-03-2008, 02:21 PM
It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.F*ck yeah McCain...go after ..the.. coal.. vote...

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 02:23 PM
The first is my five-point rule. In general, if a Democrat leads by less than five points in the polls, he loses. I was planning to run the numbers today, but the Baseball Savant already did so I don't have to. He points out:

Look at the states that would flip to McCain if the 5% adjustment holds true:

Colorado: Obama +4.3
North Carolina: Obama +0.5
Nevada: Obama +2.6
Ohio: Obama +2.1
Virginia: Obama +4.4

I haven't checked the Savant's math, but he's a competent guy and assuming that he added the states up correctly, it looks as if McCain will not only win, but will win by a larger margin in the electoral college than George W. Bush did. Also note that during the primary voting, Obama's exit polling was overestimated by SEVEN percent on average.

Second, I've been very skeptical of the polls this time around because they're based on new and improved models that have not been hitherto used and did not work well in the primaries. Thanks to Alan Greenspan and the Black Swan Boyz, we've all had it driven very well home that untested new models seldom work anywhere nearly as well as advertised. These new polling models are predicated on the idea that due to the sheer wonderfulness of Barack Obama, the turnout patterns will be very different than they've historically been. The problem is that turnout among new voters, young voters, and Hispanic voters has actually been lagging among those voting early. It's certainly true that voter registrations have been extraordinarily high, but it must be kept in mind that the ease with which registration can now be accomplished logically suggests that the percentage of registered voters who fail to vote will also be at an all-time high.

Third, the anxious actions of the Obama campaign belie the seemingly serene confidence of the Obama candidate. Obama's success in building a political career has largely been based on illusion, and I think the air of calm assurance that he's been projecting is a false one. By all rights, he should be absolutely slaughtering McCain; Hillary would probably be 20 points ahead at this point. But he isn't, and since he hasn't sealed the deal by now with such powerful Democratic winds at his back, it suggests that the deal is not sealable by him.

I'm not voting for either man. My considered opinion is that America would be worse off in the short term and better off in the long term with an Obama victory. But based on my observations, I am forced to conclude that despite the way things superficially appear, John McCain will win the election. The two key states to watch are New Hampshire and Virginia, with a particular emphasis on Virginia. If either of them go for McCain, you can safely conclude that it's over in the GOP's favor.

John Scalzi has his own take on things electoral, upon which I've commented in some detail in case you're interested.

UPDATE - Bob Krumm puts significantly more work into his analysis and reaches very similar conclusions. All hail Logic: the lazy intellectual's shortcut. It's entirely possible that we could both be wrong, of course, but look at it this way. If your life was on the line, would you bet on the precision of the media's new polling models?

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/11/presidential-prediction-mccain-wins.html

Mecca
11-03-2008, 02:23 PM
How long did it take you to convince yourself of that?

triple
11-03-2008, 02:24 PM
F*ck yeah McCain...go after ..the.. coal.. vote...

Coal generates more than half the electricity in the United States.

And it's a huge employer in a lot of these swing states.

Ultra Peanut
11-03-2008, 02:26 PM
Hey Peabrain, your boy is toast:

Just released via Fox News, a statement from Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association:

The message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.ohhhh nooooooooooooez

Reaper16
11-03-2008, 02:28 PM
His neverending deluge of posts like that are why it's hard to fathom how you can even possibly consider Hamas and SHTSPRAYER to be two sides of the same coin.
It is hard to come up with a worse comparison. I don't think I can do it.

whoman69
11-03-2008, 03:20 PM
If he wins PA then those people are friggin' dopes. He is on tape saying he wants to bankrupt an American industry (coal) so electricity costs skyrocket.

You can't make this shit up.

Consider the source. They make stuff up all the time.

whoman69
11-03-2008, 03:33 PM
The first is my five-point rule. In general, if a Democrat leads by less than five points in the polls, he loses. I was planning to run the numbers today, but the Baseball Savant already did so I don't have to. He points out:

Look at the states that would flip to McCain if the 5% adjustment holds true:

Colorado: Obama +4.3
North Carolina: Obama +0.5
Nevada: Obama +2.6
Ohio: Obama +2.1
Virginia: Obama +4.4

I haven't checked the Savant's math, but he's a competent guy and assuming that he added the states up correctly, it looks as if McCain will not only win, but will win by a larger margin in the electoral college than George W. Bush did. Also note that during the primary voting, Obama's exit polling was overestimated by SEVEN percent on average.

Second, I've been very skeptical of the polls this time around because they're based on new and improved models that have not been hitherto used and did not work well in the primaries. Thanks to Alan Greenspan and the Black Swan Boyz, we've all had it driven very well home that untested new models seldom work anywhere nearly as well as advertised. These new polling models are predicated on the idea that due to the sheer wonderfulness of Barack Obama, the turnout patterns will be very different than they've historically been. The problem is that turnout among new voters, young voters, and Hispanic voters has actually been lagging among those voting early. It's certainly true that voter registrations have been extraordinarily high, but it must be kept in mind that the ease with which registration can now be accomplished logically suggests that the percentage of registered voters who fail to vote will also be at an all-time high.

Third, the anxious actions of the Obama campaign belie the seemingly serene confidence of the Obama candidate. Obama's success in building a political career has largely been based on illusion, and I think the air of calm assurance that he's been projecting is a false one. By all rights, he should be absolutely slaughtering McCain; Hillary would probably be 20 points ahead at this point. But he isn't, and since he hasn't sealed the deal by now with such powerful Democratic winds at his back, it suggests that the deal is not sealable by him.

I'm not voting for either man. My considered opinion is that America would be worse off in the short term and better off in the long term with an Obama victory. But based on my observations, I am forced to conclude that despite the way things superficially appear, John McCain will win the election. The two key states to watch are New Hampshire and Virginia, with a particular emphasis on Virginia. If either of them go for McCain, you can safely conclude that it's over in the GOP's favor.

John Scalzi has his own take on things electoral, upon which I've commented in some detail in case you're interested.

UPDATE - Bob Krumm puts significantly more work into his analysis and reaches very similar conclusions. All hail Logic: the lazy intellectual's shortcut. It's entirely possible that we could both be wrong, of course, but look at it this way. If your life was on the line, would you bet on the precision of the media's new polling models?

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/11/presidential-prediction-mccain-wins.html

I hardly think that because 538 comes up with a different result than your boy means they are lazy. Its because of the pollsters horrible record in the primaries that their model is updated. Also to think that a voter model based on 2004 when the number of registered democrats and republicans is ludicrous. But guess what, even the pollsters that use the older model still have Obama ahead. Make another guess on which side they were low on. Obama consistently outdid the poll numbers in the primaries.

Giving McBush a 5% lean in every poll is not the lazy man's out?

Anyone who thinks that Hillary would have done better than Obama is in serious denial. Her campaign was propped up by Republicans crossing over to keep her in the race. Early on they were voting against her because they truly hate her. The religious right would be coming out of the woodwork to vote against Hillary in a general election. As it is many will not even bother to vote this time. Republicans are denying the proof that is in front of them with early voting. Despite the fact that in the past 2 elections they have gotten out and voted early and this time are not, its because this time they were not putting an emphasis on it. Right, and Sarah Palin fought against the bridge to nowhere.

penchief
11-03-2008, 03:39 PM
You O-bots are dumber than I thought.

Are the Obots catching up to the NObots yet?

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 06:54 PM
Anyone who thinks that Hillary would have done better than Obama is in serious denial. Her campaign was propped up by Republicans crossing over to keep her in the race.


Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos simply negated the media who were in the tank for B.O. and still are.

:rolleyes:

J Diddy
11-03-2008, 07:02 PM
Rush Limbaugh Operation Chaos simply negated the media who were in the tank for B.O. and still are.

:rolleyes:


Is he still alive?

***SPRAYER
11-03-2008, 07:04 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CvR2mCx-Jnc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CvR2mCx-Jnc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

vailpass
11-03-2008, 07:11 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CvR2mCx-Jnc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CvR2mCx-Jnc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

There is a joke about Obama's wife somewhere in here just waiting to be unearthed.