Election 2008

[Trey_P-I_47]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Where the heck did Trey go??????????????

Im still around, its just I am really busy on the weekends with work and usually dont get the luxury to sustain mutli-hour conversations about politics. Plus 'Hannah' had me a little tied up, although I was slightly disappointed that she didnt produce a little more rain, God knows the western part of our state has really needed it in recent months.

Anyway, you know I am loving the new Poll releases and I dont really see it as a convention bounce either. If they both gained 5-7 points, then they would cancel and Obama should still be on top, or at least tied. I think, like some previous poster said, that people are starting to look past Obamas razzle-dazzle and are now looking for the substance to back it up with.

I do agree that unless something ridiculous happens, it should be a close race, obviously with the Republicans pulling it out in the end.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

MSNBC dropped Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as election coverage. They were replaced by David Gregory.

I posted this in the thread on the subject; I think it's a good move if MSNBC is trying to move towards a hard news outlook on the election. Olbermann is essentially a liberal Rush, and while that has a place on network TV, he's not a newsman. Gregory is a very good political reporter who 99% does a good job over covering the issues.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

People are slowly falling out of love with Obama and have begun to analyze what he's actually saying.

LOL. That's good spin, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were really what's going on, we would be seeing bigger drops in Obama's numbers, not just McCain's going up and a statistical dead-heat. (At least, depending on the poll. I tend to look mainly at Rasmussen and CNN's "poll of polls." In both, it's a statistical deadheat.) There may be some truth to it, but I think for the most part it falls more into the category of partisan saying-it-makes-it-so-speak.

I think that the main factor behind the poll numbers is that the McCain campaign has been Palinized. When he first chose her, I said (in the other thread) that I didn't think it was a smart choice. I'm having to rethink that, and even admit that I was wrong. (Feel free to QFP. )

While personally I still think that, from the standpoint of picking someone actually qualified for the job, Palin is a terrible choice, it is becoming clear that strategically she is a great choice. She has energized both the GOP base and, just as importantly, the McCain campaign. She has given the campaign some much-needed focus and new life. She seems to given McCain himself new energy. It's been interesting this week that it's clear people are coming out in droves to McCain campaign events to see Palin, not McCain.

I think that the main thing behind the poll numbers right now is that, thanks to Sarah Palin, lots of people who were lukewarm about supporting McCain or were on the fence are now finding a reason to be excited about the McCain campaign.

The real question though is what will happen state-by-state. These polls are all, so far as I know, polling opinions nationally, which would tend to indicate how the popular vote will go nationally. But as we all know, presidents aren't elected by a popular national vote. The issue will be where the Obama and McCain supporters are. The analysis I have seen is all over the map, so to speak, on that, but most of it seems to indicate that McCain has a harder job ahead of him than Obama.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

LOL. That's good spin, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. If it were really what's going on, we would be seeing bigger drops in Obama's numbers, not just McCain's going up and a statistical dead-heat. (At least, depending on the poll. I tend to look mainly at Rasmussen and CNN's "poll of polls." In both, it's a statistical deadheat.) There may be some truth to it, but I think for the most part it falls more into the category of partisan saying-it-makes-it-so-speak.

I think that the main factor behind the poll numbers is that the McCain campaign has been Palinized. When he first chose her, I said (in the other thread) that I didn't think it was a smart choice. I'm having to rethink that, and even admit that I was wrong. (Feel free to QFP. )

While personally I still think that, from the standpoint of picking someone actually qualified for the job, Palin is a terrible choice, it is becoming clear that strategically she is a great choice. She has energized both the GOP base and, just as importantly, the McCain campaign. She has given the campaign some much-needed focus and new life. She seems to given McCain himself new energy. It's been interesting this week that it's clear people are coming out in droves to McCain campaign events to see Palin, not McCain.

I think that the main thing behind the poll numbers right now is that, thanks to Sarah Palin, lots of people who were lukewarm about supporting McCain or were on the fence are now finding a reason to be excited about the McCain campaign.

The real question though is what will happen state-by-state. These polls are all, so far as I know, polling opinions nationally, which would tend to indicate how the popular vote will go nationally. But as we all know, presidents aren't elected by a popular national vote. The issue will be where the Obama and McCain supporters are. The analysis I have seen is all over the map, so to speak, on that, but most of it seems to indicate that McCain has a harder job ahead of him than Obama.

And, I don't think it's broken down by those who will actually go to the polls. The low voting turnout will make a difference as well, one way or the other.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

And, I don't think it's broken down by those who will actually go to the polls. The low voting turnout will make a difference as well, one way or the other.

Plus, as been noted elsewhere at GC, polls still just call landlines. They're missing the growing number of people (mostly younger people I would guess), who have ditched landlines in favor of cellphones alone.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Plus, as been noted elsewhere at GC, polls still just call landlines. They're missing the growing number of people (mostly younger people I would guess), who have ditched landlines in favor of cellphones alone.

Telephone polling is also typically done on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. Typically, people in the 18-34 demo, (which estimates suggest make up a large part of new voter registstration), even those with landlines, are not as likely to be home to be polled.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Plus, as been noted elsewhere at GC, polls still just call landlines. They're missing the growing number of people (mostly younger people I would guess), who have ditched landlines in favor of cellphones alone.

This is becoming less of an issue, as far as I know (and this is only through reading industry mags and articles), although it's being replaced with a new problem - more and more polling is happening online, through "banks" of volunteer phone numbers including cell phones, or using on-site polling.

This simply replaces one form of selection bias with another, but since we really can't determine exactly what effect that bias will have, it's safe to take all polls with a grain of salt this early.

I guess my point is that if the polling is done via landline alone, I think it's fairly safe to say Obama's numbers are slightly underreported (even accounting for the fact that a huge number of the college kids on his side simply won't show up). Other polling, however, is just going to miss period, and completely ignore the error bars because they're making assumptions from 1983.

The two major political polling companies are not exactly known for being thorough or scientifically sound - they are, however, known for charging an assload for information, taking large payments from political committees, and firing out new polls as fast as possible.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Completely agree.

I've been interested in the TV ads I've being seeing. I've yet to see a McCain ad that tells me why I should vote for McCain -- they're all about why I shouldn't vote for Obama. Granted, I'm used to that in GOP campaigns, and I know that's how it's too often done (on both sides), but I can't muster any respect for McCain for doing it.

C'mon -- tell us why we should vote for you, not why we shouldn't vote for the other guy. The Obama ads I'm seeing are doing that; McCain should be able to make his own case, too.

It seems to me that McCain has a much more complicated sale to make: we'll change just enough that we'll get the economy out of this slump and make American better and certainly won't just be like Bush, but we won't change as much as Obama. It's hard to run as the more conservative candidate when you have to work hard not to communicate "we'll give you more of the same" because the current situation is wildly unpopular.

In contrast, if you're running as a member of the more liberal party, you can sell optimism and change. You simply have to identify problems and suggest solutions that may or may not work, with no need to address the past; it just seems like an easier and more attractive message to get out there. I do think the Obama could have been a lot more negative than he has been, but avoiding going negative is part of his campaign, right?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It seems to me that McCain has a much more complicated sale to make: we'll change just enough that we'll get the economy out of this slump and make American better and certainly won't just be like Bush, but we won't change as much as Obama. It's hard to run as the more conservative candidate when you have to work hard not to communicate "we'll give you more of the same" because the current situation is wildly unpopular.

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

This is one of the best posts on here in weeks, and I agree completely.

[darling1]

this sums up my feelings also. ive always been independent. i have not been overly impressed with either party for a number of years. i usually vote democratic because that is what i was used to. i have liked mccain because he seemed a bit middle of the road. even if he did not agree with a more liberal stance on certain issues, he seemed willing to consider the possibilities.

right now, with him not saying much--like you say, taking the low road, i am not excited.

for me, i think it may come down to the debates. either way, when its all said and done this will be a very unforgettable election season.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

I definitely wish he would adjust his campaigning. I think the election is so close, and the Palin choice hasn't come back to bite him yet, so he would want to put the good things on the table.

I'm hoping it changes soon; he's not in any danger of losing my vote, but, I can see where you and other voters are coming from.

[UGAalum94]

I don't see him taking the low road, but there's still time for more message.

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I feel like there are a lot of things McCain could focus on that would indicate that he's going to change the bad things in Washington, while keeping some of the good things. He could focus on the economy, energy, and a more effective strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he chose to take the low road, and so has Gov. Palin. It's unfortunate, because I'm one of those people who really could have gone with McCain.

He's busy focusing on silly ads. Obama supported a bill to protect children from preditors. The McCain camp ran an ad titled "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners." I don't ever remember John McCain taking the low road. This is rediculous! Whether or not you agree that "inappropropriate touching" should be taught in schools, you have to admit that the ad is missleading. You assume Obama want to pass out condoms to 5 year olds. The ads are getting dirty. The rest of the election season should be interesting!

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by pinksirfidel

He's busy focusing on silly ads. Obama supported a bill to protect children from preditors. The McCain camp ran an ad titled "Sex Ed for Kindergarteners." I don't ever remember John McCain taking the low road. This is rediculous! Whether or not you agree that "inappropropriate touching" should be taught in schools, you have to admit that the ad is missleading. You assume Obama want to pass out condoms to 5 year olds. The ads are getting dirty. The rest of the election season should be interesting!

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx

And its not just the ads... I stated before that McCain scares me. I use to really like McCain but I feel he has realized that he needs to change in order to get POTUS. He has switched on issues, which is not uncommon, but the switches have rather bad timing that suggest they are to boost poll number. He has voted against his own legislation. He picked a gimmick for VP... someone who could be a great Repub. nom. in the future, but far too early for her. There are some great picks, far more experience, far more electable and far more sustainable. He is playing the election, which you can says is politics, and sure, you got to get into office in order to do what you want as POTUS, but I just feel that he has passed the Repub. primaries, and he can go back to his maverick TRUE self now, because he is generally a well liked guy who has great ideas, etc. I need to see that McCain, and maybe this die hard liberal will vote for him. Well, actually, its too late now, I care FARRR to much about social issues to have Palin CLOSE to the oval office.