Obama v McCain Polling

FutureTaoiseach · #**1281** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnash1970

The key word here is gradually. As circumstances change and new information emerges, it is entirely reasonable for a person's position to shift. It was the long, slow grind of the Iraq war, coupled with the realisation that the justification used for the invasion was false that caused many in the US to turn against it.

But that's really not what happened in your case, FT. You did a complete 180 degree turn in a matter of days. Two weeks ago you were dismissing claims that Diebold machines might be dodgy, saying things like "I don't here pro-Obama posters complaining about victories he won in states using Diebold." You expressed the certainty - certainty, mind- that McCain would win because of his performance in the third debate, saying that the polls would narrow sharply and that McCain would move into the lead within days. But anyway America would never vote for Obama because it was, you said, a "deeply conservative" country.

What happened? Why did McCain's debate performance not affect the polls the way that you predicted? Did America stop being "deeply conservative" in the last two weeks or was your analysis of the situation overly simplistic and far too black-and-white? Would you say that your earlier interpretation of how this election would pan out (just 12 days ago) was completely wrong?

I can understand somebody gradually moving from one deeply-held belief to the centre in the light of new information, then on from there to embrace a different reality. But to move overnight from one position of certainty to its polar opposite is suspicious, especially when, Eoghan Harris-like, you have insisted at all stages that you are 100% correct. It's become laughable.

A few months ago you were saying that the PC press were going easy on Obama because he was black. Now you're saying that the print media, much of it run by GOP partisans, are either not inclined to investigate Republican dirty tricks or are just complacent about what's going on. My read of this situation is that by making a huge song and dance about Republican chicanery (which you know is highly unlikely to affect the overall result) you are hoping to distract long-time observers from your latest, and possibly biggest, flip-flop. Remember when John McCain was your avatar? I do. I'll be thinking of it next week when you're high-fiving people, telling them you know all along that Obama could do it.

The situation a couple of months ago was different as it was mainly during the primaries. And I firmly believe a combination of the Bradley effect, GOP voter-suppression and the innate conservatism of many Americans will make a McCain victory more likely. And another thing gnash1970, since you accuse me of changing my mind within days - I placed my bet (€180) on McCain winning on Paddypower.com last April - hardly a couple of days ago. At least I have the courage of my convictions to put my money where my mouth is. Can you say the same?

BTW, it's also ominous for Obama that when asked if he had the right experience to be presidence in the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, its 49-48 in his favour, compared to around 78-22 for McCain. I can't see the McCain/Republican vote going under 48% in this election - I believe there is a floor there.

gnash1970 · #**1282** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

I'm talking about a couple of days ago.

jcdf · #**1283** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

I think this election could go either way. I would not put any money on Mc Cain or Obama. I think Obama would probably be the best choice for president.
An African American as president of the USA would allow for new possibilities, one of which would be a new stance towards the African problem. I am sure many of Africa's tin pot dictators realize this too, which is probably why we have heard so little support coming from the African continent for Obama.
We could, if smart, use this as an opportunity to finally tell the African leaders to where to go, the next time they approach us with the begging bowl.
I am slightly concerned about the allegations of Obama being a socialist. For the Americans sake I hope they are just allegations. The one thing America cannot afford now is too much public spending. Cutbacks are the order of the day.

H.R. Haldeman · #**1284** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

The situation a couple of months ago was different as it was mainly during the primaries.

Isn't there a more obvious answer?: Obama has won you over (loathe as you may be to admit it).

He certainly won me over. I was very pro-Hilary at the start of the primaries but over time the force of BHO's personality, demeanour and message proved irresistible.

Since then, he has just got better and better, which I have to say I was not expecting at all. I really worried right after the primaries that he was starting to wobble, but the way he has pulled himself together, taken the hits, stayed calm and smiling has been remarkable.

Maybe you have been subliminally impressed.

FutureTaoiseach · #**1285** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.R. Haldeman

Isn't there a more obvious answer?: Obama has won you over (loathe as you may be to admit it).

He certainly won me over. I was very pro-Hilary at the start of the primaries but over time the force of BHO's personality, demeanour and message proved irresistible.

Since then, he has just got better and better, which I have to say I was not expecting at all. I really worried right after the primaries that he was starting to wobble, but the way he has pulled himself together, taken the hits, stayed calm and smiling has been remarkable.

Maybe you have been subliminally impressed.

It's true that he has won me over - except for a brief period during the Georgian crisis - and after my Hillary withdrawl-symptoms had subsided.

Some places where GOP voter-suppression has failed or been curtailed:

Quote:

GOP Voter Suppression: More Miss than Hit
By Zachary Roth - October 30, 2008, 1:10PM
Yesterday we posted a quick round-up of the various voter-suppression schemes being pushed by Republicans in swing states around the country. And after looking at the list, one thing quickly becomes clear: most of the efforts have failed.
There's no one grand unifying theory for why that's true.
In some cases, the courts have rejected GOP efforts to make voting harder:

In Indiana, for instance, a Superior Court judge declined to support a GOP bid to shut down early voting centers in Democratic-leaning cities in Lake County, and the state Supreme Court chose not to immediately intervene.

In Wisconsin, a suit brought by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen -- which he later admitted had been requested by the Republican Party -- seeking to force the state election board to re-confirm all newly registered voters was thrown out by a county court.

In Michigan, a federal appeals court today blocked the Republican secretary of state, Terri Lynn Land, from throwing 5,500 newly registered voters off the rolls because their registration cards were returned as undeliverable, after voting-rights groups sued.

In other states, Democratic state officials or voting-rights advocates have held the line:

In Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller denied a request from the state GOP to require voters to cast provisional ballots if they fixed mistakes in their voting information at the polls.

In Colorado, a bid by Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman -- who himself is running for a seat in the U.S. House -- to purge 14,000 voters from the rolls was only partially successful. After voting-rights groups sued, a settlement was reached yesterday allowing the voters to cast provisional ballots. According to the Rocky Mountain News, those ballots would "be presumed to be valid unless state and county officials prove otherwise." A lawyer for the voting-rights groups called the deal "a win-win."

In still other places, it's been a combination of both factors:

In Ohio -- perhaps the most high-profile example of voter-suppression this cycle -- the state GOP sued to force Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to provide local election officials with the names of new voters whose registration information didn't match other government documents. Brunner resisted, arguing, it appears correctly, that the information would be used to challenge large numbers of voters and cause chaos at the polls. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with Brunner. (The Department of Justice deserves some of the credit here, too, for declining a request by the White House to intervene.)

And in some states, the Republicans appear to have done themselves in through the sheer chutzpah of their behavior, and the resulting outcry:

In Montana, the state GOP announced plans to challenge 6000 voters in predominantly Democratic counties, based on discrepancies between in their listed addresses. But after even Republicans in the state denounced the ploy, the party backed off, and its executive director resigned.

In New Mexico, the state party held a press conference at which it released the names, and some personal information, of ten voters, almost all Hispanic, that it said had voted fraudulently in a Democratic primary in June. It was later established that they were all legitimate voters. The U.S. Department of Justice is now investigating reports by TPMmuckraker and others that a lawyer attached to the party sent a private investigator to the homes of some of these voters to question them about their voting status -- potentially violating federal voting laws.

Of course, that's not to suggest that Republican suppression efforts haven't been successful anywhere. In Florida, for instance, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Republican, has instructed election officials to reject voter registration applications that do not pass a computer match test. Voting-rights groups say the system can disqualify voters based on nothing more than a missing middle initial on their voter form. They fear the move could disenfranchise tens of thousands of legitimate voters. (Though even in the Sunshine State, there's a bright spot. GOP governor Charlie Crist on Tuesday ordered extended hours for early voting centers, after long lines were reported in many parts of the state.)
Of course, the whole point of the voter-suppression game is to throw up as many gambits as possible, and hope that just a few succeed. And there's no way to measure the effect that even the unsuccessful ploys have in generating cynicism about the process itself, and thereby reducing turnout, to Republicans' advantage. So in a close election, it's still possible that voter suppression could make the difference -- as it may well have done in 2000.
But it's worth noting that -- thanks largely to Democratic control of the secretary of state's offices in some key states; the skepticism with which many courts have looked on efforts to put obstacles in the way of voting; and the role of voting-rights groups and the press in exposing the bankruptcy of Republican claims -- the nationwide GOP voter-suppression effort appears to have been far less successful than the party might have hoped.

gnash1970 · #**1286** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

FT,

Saying now that you firmly believe that the Bradley effect, GOP messing and the innate conservatism of many Americans "will make a McCain victory more likely" is a huge shift from saying that you were CERTAIN that he would win and that America is a "deeply conservative" country. Hell, even a few days ago you were saying that you were becoming convinced that vote-rigging alone would do it for the Republicans. You seem to be pulling back from that position now.

And, seriously, do you want to talk about the courage of your convictions? Which ones? Do you mean when you pooh-poohed the notion that there was anything wrong with Diebold, or your diametrically-opposed position of a week later? The conviction that the elite PC press were giving Obama an easy ride, or the firm belief that a different elite of media-owning GOP partisans were deliberately under-reporting Republican skullduggery? The conviction that McCain was the best man to lead America or your position of today, where you have joined the liberals and community activist do-gooders in complaining bitterly about GOP dirty tricks? Or the conviction of the last ten minutes that Obama is a better choice? I had been wondering for ages when you would finally do the big flip-flop - that moment has now arrived. For God's sake, don't look back, FT. There's nothing good for you there.

And not that it's relevant, but I bet fifty euro on Obama to win the whole thing with a friend back in June before he had officially been selected by the Democrats (Obama that is, not my friend). Not so much prescience as the audacity of hope.

FutureTaoiseach · #**1287** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

Gallup poll demographic breakdown:

FutureTaoiseach · #**1288** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

Hakaman · #**1289** (**permalink**) 30th October 2008

It's almost slightly pitiful watching Fox news make absolute fools of themselves. Doesn't matter that every major Polling Source (RealClearPolitics.com) has Obama maintaining consistent leads across national and battle-states, the Fox News Poll tops them all. Laughable.

FOX News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows

The race for the White House has tightened significantly -- with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by three percentage points -- according to a FOX News poll released Thursday.

As the candidates make their closing arguments before the election, the race has tightened with Barack Obama now leading John McCain by 47 percent to 44 percent among likely voters, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday. Last week Obama led by 49-40 percent among likely voters.

FutureTaoiseach · #**1290** (**permalink**) 31st October 2008

Latest RCP Electoral Map has McCain regaining the lead in Indiana and Missouri. Missouri and Ohio nearly always vote for the presidential winner (the last exceptions being 1956 and 1960 respectively),

The grey states below are the toss-ups, where the candidate leads by less than 5%.:

Yesterday's polls. The shocker is the Louisiana poll, giving McCain just a 3% lead. Unless confirmed by other polls, which up to now have had at least a 20% lead for McCain, we should take it with a pinch of salt.:

Also, the LA Times have a poll of Florida early voters which has McCain leading there 49-45. Bear in mind the huge military vote that favours the Republicans (who have always gotten the military vote since Eisenhower).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politics.ie/us-politics/30230-obama-v-mccain-polling.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Palin Goes After Obama on Coal Comments FOX Embeds FOXNews.com	This thread	Refback	3rd November 2008 07:38 PM

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Third debate: McCain vs Obama	cyberianpan	US Politics	155	18th October 2008 03:27 AM
Second debate: McCain v Obama	cyberianpan	US Politics	232	9th October 2008 12:26 PM
Obama to hit McCain on Keating Five Scandal	Kerrygold	US Politics	33	7th October 2008 10:42 PM
The McCain-Obama first debate thread.	Defeated Romanticist	US Politics	130	29th September 2008 03:16 PM
McCain pips Obama - 274 : 264	Zyklon B	US Politics	69	5th September 2008 12:17 PM