Dear Jeebus - Obama Up in Virginia already?

[QED]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

Because they genuinely want to vote for him? Nobody wanted to vote for Kerry, they just knew Bush was so bad that they had to do something.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Kerry was never really popular with the young America. Young America was sick and tired of Bush, and Kerry was the only alternative.

Obama is unique in that young America rallies around him because of who he is, not because he's not-Bush.

I agree with you though, until young America proves they care enough to go out and vote it's pointless to talk about their impact.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

Because they genuinely want to vote for him? Nobody wanted to vote for Kerry, they just knew Bush was so bad that they had to do something.

I don't know... I would think hate would be a pretty strong motivation to vote-- even stronger than admiration.

Let me put it this way-- would voter turnout be higher or lower if Bush were running for a third term this year against Barack Obama, instead of John McCain?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

Because they genuinely want to vote for him? Nobody wanted to vote for Kerry, they just knew Bush was so bad that they had to do something.

I don't know... I would think hate would be a pretty strong motivation to vote-- even stronger than admiration.

Let me put it this way-- would voter turnout be higher or lower if Bush were running for a third term this year against Barack Obama, instead of John McCain?

That experiment wouldn't really prove your point though. A more accurate test would be turnout of Kerry v. Bush vs. Obama and McCain. Your test would have both hate and excitement in an election instead of isolating them. Of course hate is a motivation, but so is excitement. As far as turnout goes, if I'm not mistaken studies have shown that excitement is better than hate. Negative campaigns depress turnout across the board.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: mshan
Linwood Holton, former Republican governor of Virginia (and father in law of current governor Tim Kaine), endorsed Barrack Obama and is going to actively campaign in the state for him. :thumbsup:

This is some powerfu news

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: mshan
Linwood Holton, former Republican governor of Virginia (and father in law of current governor Tim Kaine), endorsed Barrack Obama and is going to actively campaign in the state for him. :thumbsup:

Wow, nice.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Yup if Obama can snag Virginia this changes the ENTIRE landscape of the election.

From what I hear a lot of liberals have moved into northern VA to commute to their Washington DC jobs.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Yup if Obama can snag Virginia this changes the ENTIRE landscape of the election.

From what I hear a lot of liberals have moved into northern VA to commute to their Washington DC jobs.

yes, they just moved there.

 

[ProfJohn]

Linwood Holton??? WTF?? Are you guys making some sad joke??

The guy was governor in 1970!!!!!! Woohooo a guy who was governor 34 years ago is going to campaign for me!!! We got McCain on the run now!!!!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Yup if Obama can snag Virginia this changes the ENTIRE landscape of the election.

From what I hear a lot of liberals have moved into northern VA to commute to their Washington DC jobs.

It is very likely that this will be the last election that VA is solid red.

It has been slowly going from red to purple. But I don't think we are there YET.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

I think the theory is all the voters in 2000 and 2004 that they were counting on were the 18-22 crowd. I still don't think those will turn out in any significant numbers. I am curious, however, to see if the idea holds up that the polls are significantly under-representing the late 20's crowd due to the general lack of phone landlines (as the college crowd is more likely to depend exclusively on cellphones). This is the demographic that is more likely to show up, and still trends towards Obama. I kinda have a sliver of hope pegged on that.

That, and the traditional theory that independent undecideds "break" towards the challenger later in the election (although this was fairly well quashed in 2004).

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The fact that Tim Kaine is an enormously popular Democratic governor in VA will only help Obama.

Having a governor on your side that can mobilize voters is going to be huge for Obama. Just like NM, VA could go his way on that fact alone.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
If what I hear is to be believed, Obama's ground game will be epic. We're talking unheard of new voter registrations.

Virginia and Ohio .....

Where did I hear all this talk about epic turnourt and record new voter registrations before? Oh yeah, 2004 and 2000.

Seriously, if all these "new" voters weren't motivated enough to vote 4 years against GWB (the Spawn of Satan himself), what in the hell makes you think they are gonna come out to vote for a man whose only message is "hope and change"?

I think the theory is all the voters in 2000 and 2004 that they were counting on were the 18-22 crowd. I still don't think those will turn out in any significant numbers. I am curious, however, to see if the idea holds up that the polls are significantly under-representing the late 20's crowd due to the general lack of phone landlines (as the college crowd is more likely to depend exclusively on cellphones). This is the demographic that is more likely to show up, and still trends towards Obama. I kinda have a sliver of hope pegged on that.

That, and the traditional theory that independent undecideds "break" towards the challenger later in the election (although this was fairly well quashed in 2004).

There's supposedly a large # of newly registered african americans as well ....

 

[TraumaRN]

I really think Obama is going to win Michigan, between the union vote(which is smaller but still important) and african american vote, he'll take the state. I work in downtown Detroit it just seems that all I see is Obama shirts, signs and such. He'll definitely take michigan if he mobilizes new voters...

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
More numbers, some bad for Obama.

These are all Rasmussen state polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...latestpolls/index.html

They are the ones on top of course.

First, Ras has Virginia Tied, which is up for Obama from their last poll. the SUSA and RAS difference is explained pretty much by party weighing.

Ras also has PA tied which is a BAD result for Obama. Very bad, down 2 points which is close to insignificant. However, I just don't see PA turning this time around. A tie game in PA means an obama victory in the state. We'll see what the other pollsters have to say as well.

The worst news for Obama has to be the Colorado poll which shows Mccain up 2.

FL and Ohio are up less for mccain than other polls. I don't know what Obama is doing but these states stay tantalizingly close for him but he needs to break through in one to make McCain really sweat and to offset the potential loss of WI or MI.

ALSO: Ras tends to 1) have an inhouse lean towards republicans and 2) be less likely to change drastically according to national trends. I also just saw they tend to reweight their party mix EVERY WEEK so trends are not easy to measure either.

Overall, a mixed bag for Obama.

Rasmussen has an inhouse lean towards Republicans? I don't think so. When other pollsters were reporting McCain having a +4 or +5 lead over Obama last week, Rasmussen had the race tied, or McCain +1.

Why? Rasmussen had, up to this point in time, been using a 3-month old survey of party identity to weigh his polls-- which was slightly tilted towards the Democratic side. It's no suprise that pre-Palin, Democrats were enthused and Republicans were (mostly) hiding in shame.

Rasummen's poll numbers change less drastically because of the party weighing he uses-- a candidate gains ground mostly by increasing his support from his base, but Rasmusen's poll heretofor did not account for a candidate's base growing.

He has recently lowered the Democratic weight and slightly increased the Republican weight to better account for party identity post-convention-- although he still believes (from recently polling) that Democrats outnumber Republicans and so his polls will still reflect that weighing.

Your question about 1) was answered by 2)

🙂

and yes, Ras has an inhouse lean for republicans. It's been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. find what nate at 538 has to say.

I did a google search and all I could find some a columnist at The Atlantic, and a few democraticunderground.com postings. That really is not convincing.

I even searched 538, and all I could find was their Poll ratings, in which Rasmussen is identified as one of their top-performing pollsters-- in fact, it accounts for more data used in 538's polls than any other poll.

But please tell me, how exactly do you conclude that Rasmussen has a "built-in Republican bias"? How do YOU believe he is putting that bias into the numbers? Is he undercounting Democrats? Overcounting Republicans? Using poorly-phrased questions? Always listing the Republican candidate first? Uses the RNC's mailing list as his main supply for poll takers?

EDIT: I found where Nate states Rasmussen has a slight Republican bias:

Rasmussen's polls have a slight, Republican-leaning house effect. But it's small -- less than one percentage point (Franklin finds a larger effect, but he's not looking at their state numbers, where the effect has been less pronounced). The effect is nevertheless statistically significant, mostly because we have so much Rasmussen data to work with, but it's not really anything worth getting worked up about.

I'd be curious to see how or why exactly Nate believes this, and why he believes Washington Post/CBS News/ABC/New York Times polls have a Democratic bias... not that I doubt him, I'd just like to see how or what he is basing it on.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
The fact that Tim Kaine is an enormously popular Democratic governor in VA will only help Obama.

Having a governor on your side that can mobilize voters is going to be huge for Obama. Just like NM, VA could go his way on that fact alone.

You mean the hugely popular kaine that after he spent 4 months crossing the state doing town hall meetings talking about how increasing taxes would be good his popularity made it such a success the state house couldn't even get enough votes to bring a bill forward for discussion. The same mr. Popular that passed the excessive motor vehicle fines law, which just oh so didn't blow up in his face.

Yeah, I'd be sure to put all my eggs in the kaine basket. Must explain why virtually all bho ads have been pulled from here.