US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-21-2008, 12:42 PM   #211
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a meeting of Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago Friday, June 20, 2008. A new seal debuted on Obama's podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin 'E pluribus unum' (Out of many, one), Obama's says 'Vero possumus', rough Latin for 'Yes, we can.' Instead of 'Seal of the President of the United States', Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his 'O' campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
I hope this is a bogus internet hoax.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 12:55 PM   #212
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
well, here is another Obama





I never really was afraid of him before

but lately, he has been acting unstable

and we don't need that in the whitehouse again.



deep, come the fuck off of it. What is with you?
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 02:18 PM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 03:45 PM
McCain Matches Obama in May Fundraising; Clinton in Debt - America’s Election HQ


WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama raised $22 million in May for his presidential campaign, his weakest fundraising month this year, and ended the month with $43 million cash on hand, while former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton sank deeper in debt.

Obama, who has been the fundraising leader throughout the presidential contest, entered June on virtually the same financial footing as Republican rival John McCain — a level of parity that would have been unimaginable just a few months ago.

Details of the candidates’ May fundraising, filed Friday in reports to the Federal Election Commission, came a day after Obama announced he would become the first major party candidate to forgo public financing in the general election. McCain has said he will accept the public funds, which will limit him to spending about $85 million from September until Election Day in November.

McCain raised $21 million in May and ended the month with $31.6 million in the bank. Of Obama’s cash on hand, $10 million is available only for the general election, leaving him with about $33 million to use between now and the party conventions in late summer. Obama reported debts of $304,000; McCain had debts of $1.3 million.

Obama’s decision to forgo public funds permits him to use leftover primary money in the general election. McCain cannot.

Clinton, who bowed out of the Democratic contest on June 7, reported a $22.5 million debt at the end of May, more than half of which came from personal loans to her presidential campaign. The former first lady lent her campaign nearly $2.2 million during the month, bringing her total personal investment in the campaign to $12.175 million. She had $3.4 million cash on hand left for primary spending. She also had more than $23 million for the general election, money her campaign cannot use to pay off her debts.

Clinton campaigned actively through the last Democratic primaries on June 3 before succumbing to Obama and is expected to have even greater debt at the end of this month. In a call to donors on Thursday, she said she would concentrate on paying off money owed to vendors, not her personal loans.

Obama reported spending $26.6 million in May. His heaviest spending was on advertising — he spent more than $4 million buying time for television commercials. Clinton reported total disbursements of $19.2 million for the month.

The two Democrats traded primary victories during the month but Obama continued to build his delegate advantage. He secured the nomination June 3, winning that day’s Montana primary but losing to Clinton in South Dakota.

Obama’s decision to forgo public money in the general election gives greater significance to his efforts to capitalize on Clinton’s support for the general election. Her donors would be a rich vein to tap.

First, however, Clinton needs substantial help retiring her debt. Many of her loyal donors have already contributed the maximum to her campaign, so she needs some new sources of money. That’s where Obama comes in — his donors help her out, her donors help him.

“It’s far more productive for Obama to have Hillary 100 percent focused and engaged on campaigning and raising money for him in the fall rather than having to do fundraisers at the same time to retire her debt,” said Hassan Nemazee, a Clinton national finance chairman.

“It would clearly make life easier for those of us in the Clinton world who would like to help Senator Obama raise the types of moneys that are necessary from the Clinton world to be in a position to point out, ‘Look what Senator Obama has done for Senator Clinton.”‘

Clinton and Obama will meet with her top fundraisers next Thursday in Washington, then both will campaign together Friday.

Obama said he is expecting McCain to have significant help from the Republican Party and from outside groups.

So far, though, few conservative outside groups have stepped into the presidential election and those that have have spent little money. In a news conference Friday, Obama defended his decision to go outside the public financing system.

“There are a lot of outside groups that are potentially going to be going after us hard,” he said. He also pointed out that McCain advisers have made a point of featuring the RNC’s financial advantage.

“So you know, this isn’t speculative on my part,” he said. “I think it’s something that we’ve seen in the past and it’s something that we continue to be concerned about.”
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 06-22-2008, 08:30 PM   #214
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:45 PM
[q]Pelosi's "justifications" for the FISA "compromise"
salon.com, June 22


[TIME Magazine, June 20:] Letting the PAA expire was a risk—the Administration pilloried Democrats for being soft on terrorism. But Pelosi successfully parlayed it into specific improvements. For example, under Administration proposals, the telecoms would have received full retroactive immunity from lawsuits brought by civil libertarians alleging they violated the fourth amendment by complying with Administration requests to conduct wiretaps following 9/11. In negotiations with Pelosi's office, the telecoms offered a compromise: Let a judge decide if the letters they received from the Administration asking for their help show that the government was really after terrorist suspects and not innocent Americans. Pelosi's negotiators felt that was a significant concession. The California district judge who will make the decision in such cases has been sympathetic to some of the civil libertarians' claims. And an adverse decision can be appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The telecoms are casting it as a victory, and Pelosi's aides acknowledge the telecoms are likely to win immunity in court. But they're getting less than they would have in a Senate version of the bill, and they will hardly have a free ride once litigation and lobbying fees have been added up.

This is false from start to finish...The court most certainly does not decide if the Government letters to telecoms "show that the government was really after terrorist suspects and not innocent Americans." To the contrary, the judge is barred from examining the real reasons this spying occurred. The judge has only one role: dismiss the lawsuits as long as the Attorney General--Bush's Attorney General--claims that the spying was "designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack." The court is barred from examining whether that's true or whether there is evidence to support that claim. It's totally irrelevant whether the Judge is favorable to "civil libertarians' claims" or not since he's required to dismiss the lawsuits the minute the Attorney General utters the magic words, and he's prohibited from inquiring as to whether the Attorney General's statements about the purpose of the spying are true. That's why Rep. Blunt dismissed the whole process as nothing more than a "formality"--because it compels the court to dismiss the lawsuits and bars it from engaging in the inquiry which [TIME] falsely assures [its] readers the judge will undertake.

As for the notion that telecoms will have "hardly had a free ride" from breaking our spying laws because they had to pays fees to lobbyists to get Congress to write an amnesty law for them, and incurred some lawyers fees in the resulting lawsuits, that's really almost too extraordinary for words. The amount of fees the telecoms incurred is less than pocket change. And in return, they are having the Congress pass a law with no purpose other than to compel dismissal of lawsuits brought against them by their customers for breaking the law. But in today's America, it's considered a real burden--an unjust plight--when put-upon high government officials such as Lewis Libby and terribly-burdened huge corporations such as AT&T have to incur some fees in order to win extraordinary government protection from consequences after they get caught deliberately and continuously breaking numerous federal laws. It's touching to see the Time Warner Corporation express such empathy for the tribulations of AT&T and Verizon through its media organs.

Finally, we have [TIME's] explanation as to why Pelosi and the House leadership did what they did:

Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November. "For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it...Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."

The very idea that Democrats would lose elections if they didn't support this bill is false on numerous levels. They could have easily removed the issue simply by voting to extend the PAA orders for 6-9 months. More importantly, Karl Rove's central strategy in the 2006 midterm election was to use FISA and torture to depict the Democrats as being Weak on Terrorism, and the Democrats crushed the Republicans and took over both houses of Congress. Pelosi's claim that they support extremist Bush policies in order to avoid election losses in "swing districts" is dubious in the extreme--an excuse to feed to Democratic voters to justify their complicity in these matters...What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we'll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority (Hunter at Daily Kos...has one of the clearest statements on why this bill is so abominable). The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.


Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"
salon.com, June 21

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen--in places where one would never have expected to find them--all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all...Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible--and deeply unprincipled--support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill--the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms--and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did.

...It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts. The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt--who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers--condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism--"you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe"--and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here. Last night, Greg Sargent wrote that the most infuriating aspect of what Obama did here "is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country"; that Obama's "candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security--that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong"; and that "this time, he abandoned that premise," even though "if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign--that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security--it was this legislation..."

...Making matters worse still, what Obama did yesterday is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago...Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."...You can email Burton (bburton@barackobama.com) to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty. (Incidentally, Chris Dodd made an identical promise when he was running for President, prompting the support of hundreds of thousands of new contributors, and he ought to be held to his promise as well.)

...The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies. Having said all of that, the other extreme--declaring that Obama is now Evil Incarnate, no better than John McCain, etc. etc.--is no better. Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that...Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter. Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind--probably more so--when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.[/q]
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-22-2008, 11:07 PM   #215
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:45 PM
so, erm, according to Bill Kristol, Bush is going to bomb Iran if it looks like Obama is going to win.

fucking psychos.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-22-2008, 11:47 PM   #216
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:45 PM
As Jon Stewart said--"Oh, Bill Kristol...are you ever right?"
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 12:01 AM   #217
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
As Jon Stewart said--"Oh, Bill Kristol...are you ever right?"


his NYT op-eds are appalling from a variety of standpoints.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 11:14 AM   #218
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:45 PM
altogether now: nobody. knows. anything.

[q]Barack’s Bounce

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:37 PM ET Jun 20, 2008

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

In the previous NEWSWEEK Poll, completed in late May when Clinton was still fighting him hard for the Democratic nomination, Obama managed no better than a 46 percent tie with McCain. But as pollster Larry Hugick points out, that may have had a lot to do with all the mutual mudslinging going on between the two Democrats. By contrast, in recent weeks Clinton has not only endorsed Obama but has made plans to campaign with him. "They were in a pitched battle, and that's going to impact things. Now that we've gotten away from that period, this is the kind of bounce they've been talking about," said Hugick.

The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. That matches the previous low point on this measure recorded in June 1992, when a brief recession contributed to Bill Clinton's victory over Bush's father, incumbent George H.W. Bush. Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51 percent to 27 percent. Younger voters, in particular, are more likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates are statistically tied among older voters.

Obama's current lead also reflects the large party-identification advantage the Democrats now enjoy—55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way. Even as McCain seeks to gain voters by distancing himself from the unpopular Bush and emphasizing his maverick image, he is suffering from the GOP's poor reputation among many voters. Still, history provides hope for the GOP. Hugick points out that in May 1988 when the primaries ended, Democrat Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 percent to 38 percent lead over George H.W. Bush. But Bush wound up winning handily. "Those results should give people pause," Hugick says, saying that a substantial number of voters, about 5 percent, have also moved into the undecided column. A significant improvement in the economy, or continued advances in Iraq—an issue McCain has identified with strongly as the senator who championed the "surge" first—could alter the Republican's fortunes.

For now, however, Obama is running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore, who both failed in their bids to win the White House. In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)—which is essentially where he ended up when that razor-thin election was finally decided.

Most other national polls have shown Obama with a 4 to 5 point lead over McCain so far. Random statistical error can explain some of the difference in poll results. The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points. But the latest evidence of his gaining ground goes well beyond that margin.

Obama seems to have built his margin in part by picking up a key slice of Clinton's support, including women. Women voters in the new poll prefer him over McCain by 21 points (54 percent versus 33 percent). Defections to McCain by Hillary Clinton supporters are also down significantly since she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Obama. In the new poll, registered Democrats and Democratic leaners who supported Clinton during the primaries now favor Obama over McCain by 69 percent to 18 percent. In last month's survey, Clinton supporters backed the Illinois senator by a significantly smaller margin, 53 percent to 34 percent. Registered independents have also moved toward Obama, backing him by a 48 percent to 36 percent margin after splitting about evenly in last month's poll.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 11:24 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 09:45 PM
That always reminds me of the countless polls conducted before the elections both federally and in the states here in Germany that have been so utterly wrong till election day. These last six years have just been so unpredictable, yet the polls were blown out of proportion time and time again.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 11:51 AM   #220
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:45 AM
I would just like to state that I unequivocally feel neutral towards both candidates and have some degree of contempt towards supporters, I think I can maintain this attitude until the election.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 12:09 PM   #221
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,249
Local Time: 03:45 PM
There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a few days that said almost 9 in 10 Republicans support McCain, while not quite 8 in 10 Democrats support Obama. I don't think that means that much, but interesting nonetheless. It also said that almost 1/4 of Clinton supporters currently support McCain.

Also, their current poll puts Obama up 48 to 42. Their poll at around this time four years ago put Kerry up 49 to 45.

__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 06-23-2008, 12:26 PM   #222
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 08:45 PM
To me, head to head polls at this point in time don't mean diddly-squat.


What matters more are the polls that judge the public's mood...i.e. Is the country on the right or wrong track? Are you better or worse off than 4 years ago? etc. Those to me are a better read to determine which way people are leaning.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 01:11 PM   #223
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a few days that said almost 9 in 10 Republicans support McCain, while not quite 8 in 10 Democrats support Obama.
And what were those Republican numbers a few months ago when Rush, Coulter, and so many others were saying they would vote for Hillary if McCain got the nom?

My point is time is needed for some to get over their "hurt feelings".
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-23-2008, 02:13 PM   #224
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
altogether now: nobody. knows. anything.

[q]Barack’s Bounce

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:37 PM ET Jun 20, 2008

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

In the previous NEWSWEEK Poll, completed in late May when Clinton was still fighting him hard for the Democratic nomination, Obama managed no better than a 46 percent tie with McCain. But as pollster Larry Hugick points out, that may have had a lot to do with all the mutual mudslinging going on between the two Democrats. By contrast, in recent weeks Clinton has not only endorsed Obama but has made plans to campaign with him. "They were in a pitched battle, and that's going to impact things. Now that we've gotten away from that period, this is the kind of bounce they've been talking about," said Hugick.

The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. That matches the previous low point on this measure recorded in June 1992, when a brief recession contributed to Bill Clinton's victory over Bush's father, incumbent George H.W. Bush. Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51 percent to 27 percent. Younger voters, in particular, are more likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates are statistically tied among older voters.

Obama's current lead also reflects the large party-identification advantage the Democrats now enjoy—55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way. Even as McCain seeks to gain voters by distancing himself from the unpopular Bush and emphasizing his maverick image, he is suffering from the GOP's poor reputation among many voters. Still, history provides hope for the GOP. Hugick points out that in May 1988 when the primaries ended, Democrat Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 percent to 38 percent lead over George H.W. Bush. But Bush wound up winning handily. "Those results should give people pause," Hugick says, saying that a substantial number of voters, about 5 percent, have also moved into the undecided column. A significant improvement in the economy, or continued advances in Iraq—an issue McCain has identified with strongly as the senator who championed the "surge" first—could alter the Republican's fortunes.

For now, however, Obama is running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore, who both failed in their bids to win the White House. In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)—which is essentially where he ended up when that razor-thin election was finally decided.

Most other national polls have shown Obama with a 4 to 5 point lead over McCain so far. Random statistical error can explain some of the difference in poll results. The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points. But the latest evidence of his gaining ground goes well beyond that margin.

Obama seems to have built his margin in part by picking up a key slice of Clinton's support, including women. Women voters in the new poll prefer him over McCain by 21 points (54 percent versus 33 percent). Defections to McCain by Hillary Clinton supporters are also down significantly since she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Obama. In the new poll, registered Democrats and Democratic leaners who supported Clinton during the primaries now favor Obama over McCain by 69 percent to 18 percent. In last month's survey, Clinton supporters backed the Illinois senator by a significantly smaller margin, 53 percent to 34 percent. Registered independents have also moved toward Obama, backing him by a 48 percent to 36 percent margin after splitting about evenly in last month's poll.[/q]

Actually, most people know that this Newsweek poll is far off the mark. The last time someone won by more than 15 percentage points was in 1984 when Reagan won re-election.

No polling firm is perfect, but Gallup has tended to be the most accurate over the years and has been doing polling longer than any of the other polling firms. Currently Obama is up by 3 points in the latest Gallup poll, just a percentage point above the margin of error. Gallup's final prediction of the 2004 popular vote was closer than any other polling firm.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 02:39 PM   #225
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Actually, most people know that this Newsweek poll is far off the mark. The last time someone won by more than 15 percentage points was in 1984 when Reagan won re-election.

No polling firm is perfect, but Gallup has tended to be the most accurate over the years and has been doing polling longer than any of the other polling firms. Currently Obama is up by 3 points in the latest Gallup poll, just a percentage point above the margin of error. Gallup's final prediction of the 2004 popular vote was closer than any other polling firm.



you still don't know anything. no one knows anything. it's only fools who wish they knew more than they did who are swallowing every sensationalistic storyline about a perceived horse race.

Newsweek had them tied in May. Gallup currently has Obama up 50 to 44.

but what matters, at this stage in the game, is not the national polls, nor even so much the polls in the swing states.

what matters, as U2democrat has accurately pointed out, is the overall feeling towards about the current direction of the country, and that's at it's lowest since the end of the Carter administration. also, 55% now identify as Democrats whereas only 36% identify as Republicans, and you can bet that a large portion of that 55% are young voters. so the future for the GOP is ever darkening. it seems that war, hate, and pandering to the willfully ignorant will only get you so far.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com