Breaking News: Obama and McCain are TIED

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
This poll had 735 registered voters, and I think 800 total respondents. That seems pretty damn small.

That's a perfectly fine sample size for such a poll, but polls just don't mean a whole lot at this point.....

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Robor

That is 100% truth. It didn't get screwed up overnight and it's not going to get fixed overnight either.

Sadly, I have to agree with that, it took a while to really screw things up to where they are today, and it's going to take a long time to fix them. We just have a different take on who is the right person to start the fixing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

That is 100% truth. It didn't get screwed up overnight and it's not going to get fixed overnight either.

Sadly, I have to agree with that, it took a while to really screw things up to where they are today, and it's going to take a long time to fix them. We just have a different take on who is the right person to start the fixing.

What makes you think the ones who did the harm can undo that harm?

 

[dennilfloss]

How is that breaking news? They've been more or less tied for the last few months.

And we're talking about the country that re-elected Dubya afterall...:laugh:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Breaking news: they're not.

Never take a single poll as gospel.

Bump!

Seriously, Obama is in the lead by far. McCain has a lot of work to do.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Robor

That is 100% truth. It didn't get screwed up overnight and it's not going to get fixed overnight either.

Sadly, I have to agree with that, it took a while to really screw things up to where they are today, and it's going to take a long time to fix them. We just have a different take on who is the right person to start the fixing.

What makes you think the ones who did the harm can undo that harm?

Despite what folks might say about McSame and all that, I think McCain is actually an intelligent man who actually does care about the country, unlike the intellectually challenged Bush who surrounded himself with the hubris of the neocons. The neocons have hijacked the conservative movement, and someone like McCain who is more of a centrist is needed to take it back.

Sure, McCain is conservative, so I understand if that's not your cup of tea. Don't forget that the right-wing of the republican party doesn't really like McCain because he's not really one of them. He's shown himself to be willing to work with the 'other side', which is exactly what I want from the president, someone working with both sides.

Perhaps Obama might want to start fixing things, but with unlimited power (house+senate+white house), there is no doubt in my mind the dems are going to show us all the same hubris as the republicans did, which fixes nothing.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
McCain would have been a lot closer had it not been for Palin. Liberman or even Huckabee would have been a fine pick. As is, he's not going to get any independents with Palin, and that's the election.

If the Democrats can use Librariangate and Troopergate to portray her as a politician who abuses the powers and privileges of her office in addition to being a Christian lunatic who craves censorship, then it's probably over. The problem is getting that information out to the voters.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87I predict they will claim Bush's policies fucked up Obama's administration through the first 4 years. Then go in denial mode full bore the last 4.

The problems that were either caused by Bush's policies or that weren't addressed positively by them are so great that it seems like it would be almost impossible for them to NOT fuck up the next president, whoever that is.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Perhaps Obama might want to start fixing things, but with unlimited power (house+senate+white house), there is no doubt in my mind the dems are going to show us all the same hubris as the republicans did, which fixes nothing.

Exactly right. History has shown that neither side can be trusted with full control of the govt. Best to FORCE them to work together by having divided govt. This way, at least if they can't work together, we'll have gridlock, which will torpedo the extremist agendas of both parties. Vote McCain.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
At this point it's clear that the polls still show Obama winning pretty easily, but we have to wait until 3-4 weeks to see how much the debates change things. Conventions only have so much impact. Barring major gaffes on either side, statistically it's looking like we're going to have easy blue victories in the Executive and Legislative branches. No excuses for liberals after that point, Bush can only be blamed until January 09.

I predict they will claim Bush's policies fucked up Obama's administration through the first 4 years. Then go in denial mode full bore the last 4.

The same could be said if McCain wins. Who ever wins is going to be handed country that's been run poorly for the last 7+ years and will have their hands full just trying to unfucked it.

I dont think many McCain supporters will use the crutch of Bush to deflect blame.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Perhaps Obama might want to start fixing things, but with unlimited power (house+senate+white house), there is no doubt in my mind the dems are going to show us all the same hubris as the republicans did, which fixes nothing.

Exactly right. History has shown that neither side can be trusted with full control of the govt. Best to FORCE them to work together by having divided govt. This way, at least if they can't work together, we'll have gridlock, which will torpedo the extremist agendas of both parties. Vote McCain.

Seems like you guys can never decide. On one hand you complain about "do-nothing" Congress and on the other hand you claim you want "gridlock". Which is it? (curiously enough the answer always seems to come back to wanting people to vote Republican. Shocking.)

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Seems like you guys can never decide. On one hand you complain about "do-nothing" Congress and on the other hand you claim you want "gridlock". Which is it? (curiously enough the answer always seems to come back to wanting people to vote Republican. Shocking.)

In nearly all cases, I prefer divided govt. Preferably Repub President with Dem Congress, as what we may very well get with this election if McCain can pull it off.

 

[mshan]

"I think McCain is actually an intelligent man who actually does care about the country, unlike the intellectually challenged Bush who surrounded himself with the hubris of the neocons."

From what I've read:

- George W. Bush isn't dumb (IQ higher than Kerry); he is just intellectually lazy (doesn't have knowledge base and experience to make truly informed independent judgements) and is idealogically blind

- John McCain is really scary dumb and has a dangerous temperment unfit for the presidency (I don't doubt that he loves his country, though); he is nothing more than an "I am an maverick" puppet that the RNC bought for $120 million
(he couldn't even choose his own vp, Lieberman, and at least lose this race with some personal dignity intact)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Seems like you guys can never decide. On one hand you complain about "do-nothing" Congress and on the other hand you claim you want "gridlock". Which is it? (curiously enough the answer always seems to come back to wanting people to vote Republican. Shocking.)

In nearly all cases, I prefer divided govt. Preferably Repub President with Dem Congress, as what we may very well get with this election if McCain can pull it off.

Fine by me. I just never want to see you complain about the government not getting things done, or wasting time on partisan infighting.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Seems like you guys can never decide. On one hand you complain about "do-nothing" Congress and on the other hand you claim you want "gridlock". Which is it? (curiously enough the answer always seems to come back to wanting people to vote Republican. Shocking.)

First, do no harm -- ie, taking positive steps is the best thing, but if the steps to be taken are bad ones, then gridlock or no action at all is preferable. Having one party with the power to do whatever it wants makes it extremely likely that bad things will be done.

Doing good things > doing nothing > doing bad things

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
At this point it's clear that the polls still show Obama winning pretty easily, but we have to wait until 3-4 weeks to see how much the debates change things. Conventions only have so much impact. Barring major gaffes on either side, statistically it's looking like we're going to have easy blue victories in the Executive and Legislative branches. No excuses for liberals after that point, Bush can only be blamed until January 09.

I predict they will claim Bush's policies fucked up Obama's administration through the first 4 years. Then go in denial mode full bore the last 4.

Just like everything that's wrong today is Bill Clinton's fault.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
At this point it's clear that the polls still show Obama winning pretty easily, but we have to wait until 3-4 weeks to see how much the debates change things. Conventions only have so much impact. Barring major gaffes on either side, statistically it's looking like we're going to have easy blue victories in the Executive and Legislative branches. No excuses for liberals after that point, Bush can only be blamed until January 09.

I predict they will claim Bush's policies fucked up Obama's administration through the first 4 years. Then go in denial mode full bore the last 4.

The same could be said if McCain wins. Who ever wins is going to be handed country that's been run poorly for the last 7+ years and will have their hands full just trying to unfucked it.

I dont think many McCain supporters will use the crutch of Bush to deflect blame.

No because it will show how foolish they were to elect a guy who's more of the same.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Fine by me. I just never want to see you complain about the government not getting things done, or wasting time on partisan infighting.

You'll never hear that complaint out of me. Frankly the less the govt gets done the better because we seem to lose a little more of our liberty every day the pols come to work. Keep taxes and regulations low, and stay the fvck out of my life. Let me make my own money or die homeless. Have a nice day.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
And other polls conducted on the same days have Obama up by 4.4, 5, and 7 points. Unless people were wow'ed by McCain's speech, Obama still has this in the bag.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...cain_vs_obama-225.html

You understand the concept of a tracking poll?

It takes 3 days for them to register a shift in voter opinion. Palin just gave her speech last night so we need two more days of polls to even see if she moved the polls.

The gallup poll, Obama +7, was done almost entirely before Palin's speech.

It will take at least 4 more days before we a clear picture of how things stand.

Good to hear you admit that this topic is way too premature. LOL

 

[Stoneburner]

McCain is down 2 points now with leaners in the rasmussen poll... this including Palin's speech, not his.

 

[mshan]

John Hardwood's take: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=845073181&play=1 (Palin put him in the red zone and he still couldn't score)

Palin McLame '08 :thumbsup:

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
McCain is down 2 points now with leaners in the rasmussen poll... this including Palin's speech, not his.

And his performance won't make up that difference.

 

[Stoneburner]

Gallup has it 48 - 44 Obama still. And as others have said, McCain was not that impressive. 538 has a brief explanation of tracking polls and an algorithm he uses to estimate what the daily polls look like.

Obama slightly ahead in the nationals or close to tied means he wins generally. I also think His convention appeals more to the swing states (besides florida). Couple that with teh ground game and we will, by next week be in the same position we were before the conventions. I think Palin gave the GOP a huge boost... but gave obama a boost as well.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Carmen813
This poll had 735 registered voters, and I think 800 total respondents. That seems pretty damn small.

That's a perfectly fine sample size for such a poll, but polls just don't mean a whole lot at this point.....

Actually, I would consider the sample generally flawed because:

1) It used 'registered' as opposed to 'likely' voters. If the sample size had been 1024 you would come closer to selecting a more representative sample. 30% of registered voters don't vote. That puts a big smack on the confidence interval;

2) Phone surveys. Meh. It's the best we got for speed but never replaces the ol' face-to-face (which is hardly ever used these days). To their credit they referenced cell phone users, too, so that's good - but means more dependence on weighting; and

3) Surveys like this are scary because they are 'national' and not a reliable measure of electoral patterns, and no mention was made as to sub-group weighting except ...

WEIGHTED
Total Registered Voters 691
Total Republicans 215
Total Democrats 241
Total Independents 235


No mention male/female, white/black, etc., weighting. When they don't mention it they have zero confidence in it - lol


And overall, yeah, polling now is just mental masturbation 😛

 

[Stoneburner]

BooBoo, it's largely true but averaging it out does provide a bit of a snapshot, it not the entire picture. Just reading into Obama's ground game, his money game, the voter registration drives... it's pretty remarkable. I think the polls are generally conservative and undercut obama's true support by 1-2 points.

And the state by state polling is what matters.