Post by: MicroBalrog on August 30, 2008, 01:43:22 PM
Quote
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday is the first to include reaction to both Barack Obamas acceptance speech and John McCains selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The numbers are little changed since yesterday and show Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 43%. When "leaners" are included, its Obama 49% and McCain 45% (see recent daily results).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Quote
With 49% of the vote, Obama has tied his high for the campaign to date. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.) He has received a boost in the polls coming out of the Democratic Party's convention this week, at which he became the first African-American to be nominated as the presidential candidate of a major political party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109900/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Continues-Lead-49-41.aspx
Where's the Palin Bounce, Comrade APSers?
What does this all mean?
Post by: RocketMan on August 30, 2008, 02:04:53 PM
Edited to add: I still thought we'd see at least a small initial bounce for McCain, and that it would dissipate after about a week. I'm surprised he realized little, if any, bump in his numbers.
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2008, 02:35:51 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 30, 2008, 04:06:35 PM
Also, look at several polls, as they all use slightly different methodologies.
Post by: K Frame on August 30, 2008, 04:08:26 PM
Probably the same place Obama's "15 point convention" bounce they were predicting...
Post by: longeyes on August 30, 2008, 04:19:48 PM
I see the wolfpack is off to Wasilla to unmask the rube. This will backfire come voting day--and echo on beyond. The Left is rabid; they will tell us that just as Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice weren't really black, Sarah Palin isn't really a woman. Everything about Palin is their worst nightmare.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on August 30, 2008, 04:37:22 PM
The choice of Palin was for GOP malcontents first, the rest of the country second, IMO. I wouldn't expect that appointing some unknown lady from Alaska as VP would create a huge positive stir right off the bat.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 30, 2008, 05:36:24 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 30, 2008, 06:04:50 PM
The reaction will run something like this, and it will be effective in rebutting the McCain camp attacks: If long-time experience in dealing with foreign affairs and national issues is so important, why pick a small town mayor turned Governor for a year or so for your running mate?
I suspect that his management has bought into the Clinton's propaganda of "die hard Clintonistas", of which there are in fact very few (as evidenced by Hillary's losing to a relative unknown prior to the primaries), the Clinton's media efforts to remain Mr. & Mrs. America notwithstanding.
In the end, as hard as Hillary tried to unseat Obama, she may have accidentally done him a favor: by convincing the political elite that she had a large popular support base, Obama's opponents have apparently been suckered into making a choice designed to grab the "bitter Clinton supporters." Because this choice comes at the expense of more concrete and likely voter groups (like, say, the people who believed in McCain's experience arguments about Obama), it will go down as a poor one come November, I'm predicting.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on August 30, 2008, 06:38:48 PM
At least ONE of the tickets now (finally) has someone with executive experience. Governors face more meaningful decisions in a month that senators do in a year.
At least ONE of the tickets now has someone who has fought "the machine" and won.
At least ONE of the tickets now has someone with demonstrated political integrity.
At least ONE of the tickets now has someone who comes from the "just plain folks" part of America.
A proven reformer. A tenacious athlete. A teacher. A musician. A five-time mom. A lady who don't take no crap and who does the right thing and who demands others do the right thing.
And none of it is made up, none of it is rhetoric, and none of it needs to be amplified or exaggerated.
She knows who she is and she knows where she's from.
Now, maybe, just maybe, that's not enough for the American people.
Maybe the American people have degenerated to the point where they no longer see the value in this.
At least the media jockeys would like it to appear that way.
But we now, for the first time in a long time, have a shot at something genuine in the top executive circle.
If we screw this up, at least we'll have one thing left.
We'll have electrolytes.
Post by: De Selby on August 30, 2008, 06:53:43 PM
As an objective evaluation of what this does to the election, though, I think your personal appraisals of Palin's strengths will be mostly irrelevant, because of the methods by which the McCain campaign has attacked Obama's experience. The more Palin's local experience and short stint as a governor are played up, the more bizarre McCain's attacks on Obama's community organizer, law professor, and Senate experience will appear, because most people don't know who Palin is, and none of the people who have a chance of voting for Obama are likely to share your strong confidence in her hunting and fishing "regular folks" bona fides.
So as a practical matter, while she may indeed be the best person to ever be on the run to Washington, this pick shows a lack of good campaign sense on the part of McCain. Considering that Obama has been nothing short of a brilliant campaigner so far (with the exception of trying to negotiate with the Clintons for their "support"-but then McCain just did that with his VP pick, apparently), this will not bode well for McCain in November.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 30, 2008, 06:55:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 30, 2008, 06:57:55 PM
i think there are more pumas than you think
It's possible, but based on the info so far, they appear to be more like the "legions" of Ron Paul supporters than a real political force.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 30, 2008, 07:08:26 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 30, 2008, 07:08:30 PM
i think there are more pumas than you think
It's possible, but based on the info so far, they appear to be more like the "legions" of Ron Paul supporters than a real political force.
If there are half as many Democrat Pumas as there are Republican Ron Paul supporters, that'll be enough to tip the scales.
Post by: drewtam on August 30, 2008, 07:18:16 PM
On the offense side of the campaign I'm thinking the McCain campaign sees this as a clever way to get the Obama campaign talking about experience. It only shoots themselves in the foot. On the defensive side it really reaches out to the pro-life and gun rights portions of the republican base. I think the affects of dragging Barack down into the experience fight will be very limited in success and short lived. The rallying of the base will be longer term with moderate success. The VPs are always the side shows anyway. It still comes down to McCain rallying his base and Barack rallying his base. Thats what wins elections, and Barack is ahead by a mile.
Post by: lacoochee on August 30, 2008, 07:48:50 PM
McCain/Palin 47%
Obama/Biden 45%...
Post by: agricola on August 30, 2008, 09:03:31 PM
Its also worth noting that table at the bottom of lachoochee's Zogby link. Will Palin on the ticket reduce the support Barr will pick up?
Post by: French G. on August 30, 2008, 09:38:13 PM
Post by: taurusowner on August 30, 2008, 11:23:52 PM
Palin was not a great pick
With SS against her, we know McCain made the right move
Post by: De Selby on August 30, 2008, 11:38:56 PM
If there was an doubt that Palin is the right running mate for VP, here it is:
With SS against her, we know McCain made the right move
Palin was not a great pick
With SS against her, we know McCain made the right move
Yeah, you might want to reread that post there-note the difference between objective evaluation of the impact of picking Palin on the election, versus my personal opinion, which is very clearly distinguished.
There's a difference between one's own preferences and the realities of the 2008 race. My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. But having my own idea of who should be in charge doesn't mean I have to pretend that the guy closest to it is winning the election, or that the guy winning the election is closest to it.
I don't believe in making slanted or otherwise inaccurate evaluations of a candidate's likely success just because I support or oppose that candidate.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 31, 2008, 12:08:14 AM
Post by: Regolith on August 31, 2008, 12:32:07 AM
Its also worth noting that table at the bottom of lachoochee's Zogby link. Will Palin on the ticket reduce the support Barr will pick up?
Anecdotaly....
I'd say yes. I read a lot of blogs, many of them by libertarians who were having a hard time stomaching McCain. Almost all of them made a complete 180 after the Palin pick, and are now either excited about the Palin pick or are at least reconsidering their opposition to McCain. This of course is helped by Barr's "not quite" status as a libertarian and the fact that they absolutely loathe Obama.
There are probably a large number of folks similar to them, who are also now either reconsidering their position or who just jumped on the McCain bandwagon.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 04:22:01 AM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich, and I'm with you.
Post by: Tallpine on August 31, 2008, 05:55:30 AM
Quote
Will Palin on the ticket reduce the support Barr will pick up?
By at least one vote for sure
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 31, 2008, 07:08:46 AM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
Just an observation but, if you consider yourself to be "extreme right wing" in your country, then the left must be somewhere to the west of Fidel Castro.
Post by: longeyes on August 31, 2008, 07:19:41 AM
Really?
I think they don't, but if they do, by a squeaker, we can look forward to the most tumultuous first term in American history. I'd keep the Praetorian Guard on alert and keep them well bribed.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 31, 2008, 08:38:08 AM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
Post by: roo_ster on August 31, 2008, 10:44:37 AM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
His wife's looks, height, and fashion sense.
Post by: roo_ster on August 31, 2008, 10:45:36 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 31, 2008, 10:48:36 AM
I read a column yesterday titled, "Palin: The Libertarian Candidate for Vice President."
That's because she is. In terms of the sense of well-adjusted and self-reliant people.
Not freaks in wookie suits.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 01:20:29 PM
Most folks are in the center and she's not a bad fit. Setting aside her qualifications, much of politics in reality is how the silent majority of moderates view you. I think this is how she'd play in the Rust Belt where McCain has some glaring weaknesses.
Her husband is a union man in one of the few remaining American heavy industries, yet she took on the "profiteers" and bosses in Alaska. Got money back to her citizens to help with heating costs.
She has one house in her home town and a fish camp, not any sort of mansion(s).
Played high school sports in a small town, just like their daughters.
She's diverse in that her husband is an AK Native (partly), but that's not scary if they harbor any hidden concerns about race.
Husband is a "man's man" and not bad looking. Not an effete city boy.
Her family hunts, their families hunt.
She is a small town girl, they are small town folks.
PTA and hockey mom who makes time to do both her job and support her kids.
Boy is in the Army, like their boys.
A beauty queen (what a slam to use against her
) but in effect the "Corn Queen" of Wasilla, AK.She's pro-life, but not in a strident way and she showed the courage of her convictions in having her kids, especially Trig. Most pro-choice "common folks" are, quite rightly, conflicted about it on some level. The "safe, legal and rare" types are the most common and Obama has gone well beyond that in documented voting. If other moms don't see her as forcing daughters to keep rape babies, I don't think she'll turn them off much.
She's an ID proponant, but her "flavor" hasn't been defined yet and there are a lot of heartland folks who, even if they disagree, are comfortable with the position of "believe what you want, just don't force it on me". If she can walk that line, that can be a plus for a lot of people.
She's already getting the back-handed, yet obvious, "not good enough because she's a woman" criticisms from the talking heads. Every right thinking person hates that, especially moderate women who were partly on board with Hillary for sex reasons.
I see the numbers skewing more in her favor as she makes herself known to people (assuming she doesn't put her foot in her mouth). Her one real "scandal" with the trooper may actually resonate more than turn folks off as they get more of the context (sticking up for family against a creep).
Again, the swing voters are the common folks, not the idealogues and talking heads. It's too soon to see where her polling will go.
Post by: Bigjake on August 31, 2008, 01:28:29 PM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich, and I'm with you.
Given the fact that you aren't from around here (Ohio, Dennis the Menace's district) I'll forgive that comment.
Post by: K Frame on August 31, 2008, 03:47:54 PM
I'll vote for him for emperor.
Post by: agricola on August 31, 2008, 04:10:07 PM
Resurect Ronnie and make Reaganstein.
I'll vote for him for emperor.
I'll vote for him for emperor.
the position is already filled:
Post by: longeyes on August 31, 2008, 04:39:51 PM
Quote
I don't think it is the hard-core Hillary supporters she'll sway, but the moderate Dem women in the heartland.
The dividing demographic line is married women versus unmarried.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 31, 2008, 04:47:54 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on August 31, 2008, 05:09:25 PM
The Rasmussen poll is reported on a 3 day rolling average so you won't see full changes until after 2 or 3 days of polling.
The Gallup poll says it is a poll of register voters, not "likely voters" which the Ras. poll says. I am not sure what the difference is, but it isn't the same or they would not term it that way.
The Zogby poll says likely voters, but it also was polling from the 29th and 30th.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 06:13:07 PM
Not freaks in wookie suits.
I'd rather fight for freedom in a wookie suit than endorse slavery in a tie.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 06:15:08 PM
Not freaks in wookie suits.
I'd rather fight for freedom in a wookie suit than endorse slavery in a tie.
That has such a nice ring, almost Patrick Henry-ish, but so few places where it makes sense in or out of context.
"My fellow Americans..."
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 06:18:00 PM
Not freaks in wookie suits.
I'd rather fight for freedom in a wookie suit than endorse slavery in a tie.
That has such a nice ring, almost Patrick Henry-ish, but so few places where it makes sense in or out of context.
"My fellow Americans..."
...there are Klingons in the White House!
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 06:18:42 PM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
Just an observation but, if you consider yourself to be "extreme right wing" in your country, then the left must be somewhere to the west of Fidel Castro.
I don't actually agree with Dennis' views, but I think he's an admirable person.
What, I must only respect people with whom I agree?
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 06:24:50 PM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
Just an observation but, if you consider yourself to be "extreme right wing" in your country, then the left must be somewhere to the west of Fidel Castro.
I don't actually agree with Dennis' views, but I think he's an admirable person.
What, I must only respect people with whom I agree?
Actually I see him the same way: he is responsive to his bosses (the electorate in his district) without question, and he makes clear to them what his views and agenda are...without a bunch of "media savvy" aides to tell him how to shape his votes and message so that it amounts to what people want to hear, rather than being a reflection of his beliefs, so they can decide who they want to elect.
It is a good thing that he has the courage to say what he believes and not be embarrassed by the media barrages leveled against him.
Post by: CombatArmsUSAF on August 31, 2008, 10:02:17 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 06:08:46 PM
Jim
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 02, 2008, 08:53:36 AM
Quote
My ideal candidate would likely be a frankensteinian creation of parts from Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison
Remove Nader. Add Kucinich?, and I'm with you.
Just an observation but, if you consider yourself to be "extreme right wing" in your country, then the left must be somewhere to the west of Fidel Castro.
I don't actually agree with Dennis' views, but I think he's an admirable person.
What, I must only respect people with whom I agree?
Actually I see him the same way: he is responsive to his bosses (the electorate in his district) without question, and he makes clear to them what his views and agenda are...without a bunch of "media savvy" aides to tell him how to shape his votes and message so that it amounts to what people want to hear, rather than being a reflection of his beliefs, so they can decide who they want to elect.
It is a good thing that he has the courage to say what he believes and not be embarrassed by the media barrages leveled against him.
You can't mention Kucinich without mentioning his way-out-of-his-league wife. I believe it is an internet political law.
I'd rather deal with a Dem who is upfront about their beliefs and where they differ from mine than the kind who tries to hide what he is just to get elected.
Post by: roo_ster on September 02, 2008, 09:43:41 AM
You can't mention Kucinich without mentioning his way-out-of-his-league wife. I believe it is an internet political law.
And I am the only one so far to adhere to that
Matter of fact, I'll provide a photo:
Get that boy some lifts!
OK, one more:
.jpg)
Post by: Scout26 on September 02, 2008, 09:55:04 AM
But I have to agree with TallPine that only 4 Nov poll matters.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 02, 2008, 10:03:27 AM
FYI,
The Rasmussen poll is reported on a 3 day rolling average so you won't see full changes until after 2 or 3 days of polling.
The Gallup poll says it is a poll of register voters, not "likely voters" which the Ras. poll says. I am not sure what the difference is, but it isn't the same or they would not term it that way.
The Zogby poll says likely voters, but it also was polling from the 29th and 30th.
The rolling average thing is a big deal with the Rasmussen polls. It gives their polls a bigger sampling size, which presumably makes them more accurate. On the other hand, it means that their data always has a little bit of lag time, and their results don't reflect recent changes in the race quickly. The Rasmussen data is just now beginning to show the impact of Obama's convention. Palin and the Republican convention aren't present in their data yet.The Rasmussen poll is reported on a 3 day rolling average so you won't see full changes until after 2 or 3 days of polling.
The Gallup poll says it is a poll of register voters, not "likely voters" which the Ras. poll says. I am not sure what the difference is, but it isn't the same or they would not term it that way.
The Zogby poll says likely voters, but it also was polling from the 29th and 30th.
The difference between registered voters and likely voters is also a big deal. Most of the population is registered to vote, and thus is counted in "registered voters" polls. However, only about half of the population actually votes. Actual voters tend to look at politics differently than the general population. You'll get slightly different, and slightly more accurate IMO, poll results if you limit your sample to people who are likely to vote.
In my experience, Zogby and Rasmussen tend to be the most consistently accurate polling outfits. Just be sure to read the fine print and understand each ones limitations.
Keep an eye on the Rasmussen data in over the next few days. If it begins to confirm the Zogby results, then you'll know something has really changed. Also keep an eye on the polls next week. Convention "bounces" tend to appear in the data on the weekend and the week after the convention.
Post by: freedom lover on September 02, 2008, 11:43:20 AM
Emporer Reagan= Revolution.
I would fight either to the death. I don't like monarchs.
Post by: freedom lover on September 02, 2008, 11:44:47 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on September 02, 2008, 12:23:52 PM
Exit polls are different, but I'd hate to go to bed and find a "Dewey Defeats Truman" waiting for me.
Post by: seeker_two on September 02, 2008, 01:23:28 PM
You can't mention Kucinich without mentioning his way-out-of-his-league wife. I believe it is an internet political law.
And I am the only one so far to adhere to that
Matter of fact, I'll provide a photo:
Get that boy some lifts!
OK, one more:
Isn't there a law against women having sex with lower animals....
Post by: HankB on September 03, 2008, 11:28:35 AM
. . . Exit polls are different, but I'd hate to go to bed and find a "Dewey Defeats Truman" waiting for me.
Weren't the Dems crying a river in the last election because exit polls in states like Ohio were wrong?Back around 1980 or so, the late syndicated columnist Mike Royko wrote a column about exit polls, in which he urged everyone to lie if they were asked who they voted for as they came out of the polling place.
Didn't make him popular with the pollsters.
Post by: Werewolf on September 03, 2008, 11:48:11 AM
Quote
Back around 1980 or so, the late syndicated columnist Mike Royko wrote a column about exit polls, in which he urged everyone to lie if they were asked who they voted for as they came out of the polling place.
That could conceivably be a very dangerous thing to do this time around.If folks lie to the pollsters and lie by saying they voted for Obama.
Polls indicate he's a strong winner everywhere as a result.
Official results are he gets creamed.
Obamaniacs freak out, claim the fix is in. Insuing riots and other nastiness could be really, really bad.
Post by: longeyes on September 03, 2008, 12:07:07 PM
Post by: xavier fremboe on September 04, 2008, 05:14:47 AM
Quote
Back around 1980 or so, the late syndicated columnist Mike Royko wrote a column about exit polls, in which he urged everyone to lie if they were asked who they voted for as they came out of the polling place.
That could conceivably be a very dangerous thing to do this time around.If folks lie to the pollsters and lie by saying they voted for Obama.
Polls indicate he's a strong winner everywhere as a result.
Official results are he gets creamed.
Obamaniacs freak out, claim the fix is in. Insuing riots and other nastiness could be really, really bad.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 04, 2008, 05:26:44 AM
Quote
Back around 1980 or so, the late syndicated columnist Mike Royko wrote a column about exit polls, in which he urged everyone to lie if they were asked who they voted for as they came out of the polling place.
That could conceivably be a very dangerous thing to do this time around.If folks lie to the pollsters and lie by saying they voted for Obama.
Polls indicate he's a strong winner everywhere as a result.
Official results are he gets creamed.
Obamaniacs freak out, claim the fix is in. Insuing riots and other nastiness could be really, really bad.
Something tells me that even if it isn't close, if Obama loses we are in for some rough times. I may even wish I was back in Iraq. Could be safer.
Post by: TommyGunn on September 04, 2008, 09:35:13 AM
What does this all mean? It means that Palin, while a great pick for McCain, will have little effect on the votes he gathers. It will still be President Obama come January 20.
Ah, come on, you're being premature. Last night's Fox Report indicate a tiny gain in favor of McCain. Not much (1%) but the tren is in the right direction.
There's a significant number of people saying they'll vote for Obama who won't; they say it to be "politically correct."
The election is close, real close, and too close to call right now.
But we should be optimistic.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 04, 2008, 09:52:08 AM
Quote
Something tells me that even if it isn't close, if Obama loses we are in for some rough times. I may even wish I was back in Iraq. Could be safer.[/quote ]
As opposed to Obama WINNING?
As opposed to Obama WINNING?