By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama's Lead on McCain in Polls Largest Since June

Jackson50 said:

 

I would recommend looking at the individual state polls as opposed to the national polls. When one looks at the individual state polls, the election appears much closer.

Individual state polls are often poorly and sporadically done, and they are generally pretty far apart from one another temporally, so its hard to get a grasp on where the state actually stands.  They also have pretty small sample sizes.  So, in theory, yes, but in practice, not necessarily.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
Sansui said:
You can't ever forgot Karl Rove's October surprise. There will be SOMETHING epic from that slimeball or his prodigy in October.

Last time I checked he wasn't working with the campaign, and is still in political exile for some of his questionable acts while in the White House.  Karl Rove also pulled quite a slander campaign on McCain in 2000, so I don't think McCain will seek his help.

Not to menion Rove is only interested in helping out a campaign if it has some tangible advantage for him, such as all the power he had as a political consultant while working with Bush the governor and Bush the pres.  And Rove is a political hand grenade at this point as he is still under investigation, so I don't think McCain would touch him even if he wanted to.

Rove is different from a lot of Republicans in that he isn't willing to go out of his way for his party (like some of the nutjob authors who think it is their duty to take down a candidate) if he isn't going to be benefitted in some way.  I can respect that.

If you want to know more about Rove, read Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove.  Fascinating biography.

 

Karl Rove has actually been reasonably vocal during this campaign, whether McCain wanted his help or not.  And I also mistyped "protege" as "prodigy" for some reason, and I definitely do think there is a Sith apprentice in McCain's campaign whether he knows it or not, ready to plant that traditional October Super Smear :P

 



Sansui said:

Karl Rove has actually been reasonably vocal during this campaign, whether McCain wanted his help or not.  And I also mistyped "protege" as "prodigy" for some reason, and I definitely do think there is a Sith apprentice in McCain's campaign whether he knows it or not, ready to plant that traditional October Super Smear :P

 

 

Rove is a practical guy who solves problems in a practical way, whether or not the means be ethical.  But I just don't see him going out of his way to help out the Republicans on the presidential trail when there is no chance he will get a job in the White House because of it and because even many Republicans want to distance themselves from Rove and his kind of politics.  Rove can be totally hit or miss.  During the 2004 election, his kind of politics worked great, during the 2006 election, his kind of politics sunk the entire Republican party.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Jackson50 said:

 

I would recommend looking at the individual state polls as opposed to the national polls. When one looks at the individual state polls, the election appears much closer.

Individual state polls are often poorly and sporadically done, and they are generally pretty far apart from one another temporally, so its hard to get a grasp on where the state actually stands. They also have pretty small sample sizes. So, in theory, yes, but in practice, not necessarily.

 

 

National polls are often hyped because they give people something to discuss...much like this thread. A more accurate portend for the outcome of the election is the polls of the individual states. Their frequency is not a problem. Multiple polls a week from the same state is superfluous. I am unsure as to how they are poorly done. They are mostly conducted by the same polling firms that conduct national polls.



Jackson50 said:

 

 

National polls are often hyped because they give people something to discuss...much like this thread. A more accurate portend for the outcome of the election is the polls of the individual states. Their frequency is not a problem. Multiple polls a week from the same state is superfluous. I am unsure as to how they are poorly done. They are mostly conducted by the same polling firms that conduct national polls.

About half of them are done by national pollsters, the other half by in-state or local groups, who don't always have the same methodologies.  Sometimes they better understand the state's electorate though, which the national pollsters can misconstrue. 

State polls are an important gauge, but they should be taken with as much or more incredulity as national polls.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
Sansui said:
You can't ever forgot Karl Rove's October surprise. There will be SOMETHING epic from that slimeball or his prodigy in October.

Last time I checked he wasn't working with the campaign, and is still in political exile for some of his questionable acts while in the White House.  Karl Rove also pulled quite a slander campaign on McCain in 2000, so I don't think McCain will seek his help.

Not to menion Rove is only interested in helping out a campaign if it has some tangible advantage for him, such as all the power he had as a political consultant while working with Bush the governor and Bush the pres.  And Rove is a political hand grenade at this point as he is still under investigation, so I don't think McCain would touch him even if he wanted to.

Rove is different from a lot of Republicans in that he isn't willing to go out of his way for his party (like some of the nutjob authors who think it is their duty to take down a candidate) if he isn't going to be benefitted in some way.  I can respect that.

If you want to know more about Rove, read Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove.  Fascinating biography.

 


Yeah, the whole "seeking help" thing was just a move by McCain to not super alienate people.  I'm sure it's pretty hard for McCain to be in the same room as the man.

 

Heh shows you how far the county has gone though in 8 years.  Where a black baby can eliminate you for service, and now a black man has a better then even shot at winning the presidency. 

Well half black.

Then again he probably won't win SC.



Speaking with polls by the way.

What's up with Zogby. Why are they being used for anything anymore? I coulda swore the man himself said he rigged the polls for Kerry last election, and that's why Zogby was so far away from everyone else.

Or something real similar to that anyway saying he used really biased sources and was blind to it due to his own bias and really wanting kerry to win.



Kasz216 said:
Speaking with polls by the way.

What's up with Zogby. Why are they being used for anything anymore? I coulda swore the man himself said he rigged the polls for Kerry last election, and that's why Zogby was so far away from everyone else.

Or something real similar to that anyway saying he used really biased sources and was blind to it due to his own bias and really wanting kerry to win.

Oddly enough the Zogby poll recently had McCain up by +5 while pretty much every other one showed Obama had a +1 to +4.

Maybe he was trying to make up for last election...

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
Speaking with polls by the way.

What's up with Zogby. Why are they being used for anything anymore? I coulda swore the man himself said he rigged the polls for Kerry last election, and that's why Zogby was so far away from everyone else.

Or something real similar to that anyway saying he used really biased sources and was blind to it due to his own bias and really wanting kerry to win.

Oddly enough the Zogby poll recently had McCain up by +5 while pretty much every other one showed Obama had a +1 to +4.

Maybe he was trying to make up for last election...

Yeah, his was the first that showed McCain with a lead too... Makes me wonder if he changed his sample pool and went too far right.

Either that or he just has a bias towards people who focus more on economic issues and perfer small economys.  (Since Kerry would of spent much less then Bush would off... what with the congress at the time.)



akuma587 said:
Jackson50 said:

 

 

National polls are often hyped because they give people something to discuss...much like this thread. A more accurate portend for the outcome of the election is the polls of the individual states. Their frequency is not a problem. Multiple polls a week from the same state is superfluous. I am unsure as to how they are poorly done. They are mostly conducted by the same polling firms that conduct national polls.

About half of them are done by national pollsters, the other half by in-state or local groups, who don't always have the same methodologies.  Sometimes they better understand the state's electorate though, which the national pollsters can misconstrue. 

State polls are an important gauge, but they should be taken with as much or more incredulity as national polls.

 

About half of them are done by national pollsters? I would love to see the evidence supporting that. If you want a more accurate estimate of the outcome of a presidential election, state polls are a better choice than national polls. The election is won by the number of EC votes a candidate wins. Here are two excellent resources my professors and I use when looking at the current state of the presidential election:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/