How Obama got elected.......

[VintagePunk]

Anyone have anything left besides "You're full of crap" and "I'm an expert on all known topics" to contribute, or should I just close this one? We're going in circles here.

I tried, yolland. For now, unless something new and worth replying to comes up (and I'm not holding my breath on that one...), I'm out.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Do you prefer threads where only people on the "left" post?

yes only lefties... ban all ya righties fo life...

 

[HBK-79]

Obama won the same way Clinton won in 1992.

Whenver the US economy is crap, American will put a Dem in the White House.

It's always been like that.

 

[indra]

Anyone have anything left besides "You're full of crap" and "I'm an expert on all known topics" to contribute, or should I just close this one? We're going in circles here.

Is this the thread that had the ignore is good/ignore is bad mini-debate several days ago (or was it the Prop 8 one?)? I was going to put my two cents about that in, but I was too busy ignoring everyone to get around to it.

 

[purpleoscar]

You are soooooooo full of crap.

Damn! I thought I was close to convincing you.

 

[purpleoscar]

Anyone have anything left besides "You're full of crap" and "I'm an expert on all known topics" to contribute, or should I just close this one? We're going in circles here.

It could be worse. We could be talking in this thread:

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...s-takes-credit-for-u2-album-delay-191039.html

 

[VintagePunk]

So I lied, I'm not out.

I found a couple of interesting articles with statements made by John Zogby regarding this poll. They're really worth reading in their entirety, but I'll post the relevant bits.

Zogby won?t duplicate Obama poll - Mike Allen - Politico.com

Zogby told Politico in a telephone interview that the volume of reaction was in the top 10 percent he had received to his 24 years of polling.

This week, Ziegler proposed to pay for a similar poll of McCain voters. But Zogby told Politico he will not do the poll the same way.

“I am happy to do a poll of both Obama voters and McCain voters, with questions that I formulated and sponsored either by an objective third party or by someone on the left, in tandem with a John Ziegler on the right — but poll questions that have my signature,” Zogby said.

“I believe there was value in the poll we did,” Zogby added. “I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

The Numbers Guy : Zogby's Misleading Poll of Obama Voters

During a campaign, pollsters can build credibility by forecasting election results accurately. Afterward, they can build revenue by using that credibility to attract private clients. These private surveys often have an agenda, and their numbers can’t be tested against an objective standard, such as votes. Such surveys can test pollsters’ standards of conduct.

...

But on Wednesday, Zogby told me he was on a book tour* when the contract was reached and when the survey was conducted, and wouldn’t have approved the poll in the form it took, or a press release posted on his firm’s Web site. “This was not Zogby International’s finest hour,” he said. “Something, somehow, fell through the cracks.” He said he would review the incident with his staff on Friday to determine what went wrong. Nonetheless, Zogby stood by the results of the poll themselves. “There is valuable information in this poll,” he said.

...

Zogby said he wouldn’t have approved the poll without including McCain supporters. “A more honest poll would have been conducted had we also focused on McCain people,” he said. He added that some of the questions weren’t worded fairly.

...

Between elections, Zogby has conducted research for online-gambling advocates that the head of a polling professional association told me was “loaded and biased,” and started a survey about voters’ concerns of potential corruption in a Hillary Clinton White House with the statement “Some people believe that the Bill Clinton administration was corrupt.”

Though Zogby has defended those surveys, he also admits that at times bad polls get through the firm’s safeguards. For instance, a 2001 poll sponsored by a liberal Web site told respondents that a candidate for a White House position had “pleaded guilty to the crime of lying to Congress,” then asked, “Do you think that someone who admitted to deceiving Congress should or should not be appointed to a top level White House position?” Not surprisingly, three-quarters of respondents said no. After Opinion Journal’s James Taranto criticized the question as “misleading and tendentious,” Zogby said, “I quickly backed off and apologized. It was a terrible question. It was wrong. These things do happen. We would like to believe they happen very rarely.”

So, Zogby has all but repudiated the poll, saying that the questions were unfairly worded, it "slipped through the cracks," he wouldn't have allowed it to be done in that form if he'd had been present when it was commissioned, and yet he says that it still "contains some valuable information?" I call BS, you can't have it both ways. He's trying to maintain some facade of professional integrity, but he just plain dropped the ball on this one, and he knows it.

 

[purpleoscar]

YouTube - Brokaw and Rose Admit They Don't Know Much About Obama.

This hasn't been posted yet.

 

[Diemen]

Yes it has.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...ead-13-victory-lap-190738-14.html#post5595171

 

[BVS]

Damn! I thought I was close to convincing you.

It would be nice someday when you actually have logic or sources...

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

^

 

[sharon]

Here's why you guys won in a nutshell.:

I speak with having participated directly or indirectly in general elections since 1972 and having a principled intellect.

Other than one time since 1952 after 8 years in office-the country always has elected a different party to the Presidency.

Secondly-the economy will give the challenger a 7-10 point advantage if it is bad during the race. Look at Reagan/Carter. Look at GHB/Clinton .

37-38% of Americans are GOP
43-44% are Democrat

The rest are Independent or other 10-15%

The Independents usually vote the economy-no matter who the President is.

The economy was in the sh*tter due to the Fannie and Freddie mess (thank you Dems)-also the pro longed War on Terror-(thank you Republicans)

I congradulate Obama on his win, however given the circumstances based on national and economic conditions in collusion with the Dinosuar MSMedia: Borat, The Love Guru or Wayne Campbell and Garth Alger could have beaten John McCain.

If the economy was humming along like in 2004-05-you may not have won, but probably still would have based on the opening reasons in this post.

Sorry to have to douse the Obamatron's ecstasy party with a cold glass of reality, carry on.

<>

Freddie and Frannie were only 30% of the bad loans and thats common knowledge. Greed and deregulation was the cause of this mess.

 

[purpleoscar]

Freddie and Frannie were only 30% of the bad loans and thats common knowledge. Greed and deregulation was the cause of this mess.

It shouldn't even be 30%. The rest of the bad debt had to do with greed and a lack of updated regulation to deal with futures and the packaging of loans. Also low interest rates for over a decade tempted people to borrow more which can start okay but when people borrow to the point their salaries are eaten up then the good loans start turning bad. If interest rates were raised during the boom period not so many people would be in debt trouble now. The cycle keeps repeating every so often because of priming of the pump too often.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

he got more votes than the other guy

/thread

 

[Diemen]

[thread]

because he ran a much better campaign.

[/thread]

 

[toscano]

Because he's the only one of the two candidates actually born in the United States.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that's not really true.

In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.

But the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama's donor base and its giving. And that's what the Institute found, to its own surprise.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael Malbin, admitting that his organization also was fooled. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Adding up the total contributions from the same small individuals (in terms of dollar amounts, not their height), the Institute discovered that rather than the 50+% commonly....

...reported throughout the campaign, only 26% of Obama's contributions through last August and only 24% through Oct. 15 came from people whose total donations added up to less than $200.

The key word there being "total."

It comes down to which definition of "small donor" you accept:

Someone who donated to the Obama campaign by scraping together $199, period.

Or someone who donated $199 to the Obama campaign several times, perhaps totaling close to the $4,600 legal limit for the primary and general elections. In aggregate, that would vault him/her out of the small donor category that was so useful to the political campaign's public relations campaign portraying the donor base as about two times as broad as it really was.

The reported numbers show that Obama actually received 80% more money from large donors (those giving $1,000 or more total) than from small donors.

Through the Democratic National Convention, the Institute estimates, Obama received $119 million from genuine small donors, an impressive sum, to be sure.

But not as impressive as the $210 million he'd raised by then from bundlers and large donors.

"After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)," the CFI study says, "it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated."

Now, we'll see how broad-based news coverage of this real reality is.

Obama's small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

It's always just the way the candidate is marketed to manipulate the public. It may have been more popular with the media this time but it always happens.Politics is fake and there is no hope.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

because he ran a much better campaign.

I'm still waiting for the "how McCain didn't get elected" thread. That would be a good one..

 

[VintagePunk]

I'm still waiting for the "how McCain didn't get elected" thread. That would be a good one..

Ha! I sort of started one (well, it was more like "what's gone wrong with his campaign") a few weeks before the election. Republicans didn't seem to want to post in it, although I explicitly invited them to.

 

[u2gek]

... but the reason why McCain lost is because of the financial crisis being blamed on Republicans and it resonated.

I'm late getting into this mix, but have to say, McCain lost this way before the financial crisis unfolded. Did anyone see the debates? "That guy" couldn't possibly have won. While Barack Obama was generally cool and unflappable, McCain always came off as angry, bitter and condescending. "My friends" my ass. I couldn't stand "the candidate" John McCain. I liked the gracious John McCain who appeared at the end.