As the election gets near...

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

As the election gets near...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The past few elections, I've noted a trend away from the "dreamy" candidate, and towards a more "safe" choice as the election nears. It seems that when it comes close to the time to pull the lever, the reality hits and minds change.

This is from Zogby. While any one day of his daily polls means nothing, the trend seems to point towards a final destination. And so maybe this is something. Or maybe not. We shall see...
Obama leads McCain by 48 to 44 percent among likely voters in the four-day tracking poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

Pollster John Zogby said that while Obama's overall lead had remained relatively stable between 2 and 6 points in the 12 days since the poll started, the latest figures showed a bump for McCain following Wednesday's final presidential debate.

"Today was the first full sample post-debate and there's a clear indication that McCain is moving up," Zogby said.

He added that McCain's support among Republican voters appeared to be consolidating.

McCain was backed by 91 percent of Republicans in the poll, while Obama drew support from just 88 percent of Democrats. But Obama still enjoyed a 16-point advantage among independent voters, which many analysts expect to be a deciding factor in the November 4 election.
There's something else I've wondered about. We Virginians - who elected the first ever black governor - are aware of something called the Wilder effect. The left coasters call it the Bradley effect. The phenomenon appeared in Virginia when just before the election, Wilder was "wildly" ahead. But when it came time for the vote, he just barely got elected. The gist of it is that people will unconsciously tell pollsters what they think they want to hear. But behind the curtain, they very well may do something entirely different.

From Zogby's blog.

Hey, This Race Might Be Winnable

A lot of the state polls look pretty bad for McCain lately, but there's been an interesting shift in the tracking polls.
  • Rasmussen’s Presidential Tracking poll now shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. At one point, Obama was up by 8.
  • Gallup’s national tracking poll of likely voters has Obama leading McCain by two points, 49 percent to 47 percent.
  • AP/Yahoo shows Obama leading McCain by two points, 44%-42%
  • The Reuters/C-Span/Zogby national tracking survey shows Obama leading McCain by five points, 49%-44%.
  • The GW/Battleground tracking poll has Obama leading McCain by four points, 49%-45%.
The other thing is, in most of these, if there's been movement, Obama's been pretty consistent - right around, or just under, 50 percent. McCain's gains have come from undecideds.
There are a lot of other interesting things going on. Some of it is happenstance consequences of several administrations worth of bad policy, such as the popping of the housing bubble and the collapse of the "junk loan" market. Another thing worth noting is the halving of the price of a barrel of oil. It seems that just when you fill your tank to take advantage of the new low price of gas, it drops another nickel. Don't think that consumers don't notice that. Call it instant gratification if you will. I truly believe that the "Average Joe" cares more about the stupid little things right in front of his nose like how much it costs to fill his pickup truck on that day.

- Bill
Last edited by Bill Glasheen on Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Except that McCain is not a safe choice unless you're retarded. :wink: Republican my ass, he's a lunatic.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

TSDguy wrote:
Except that McCain is not a safe choice unless you're retarded. :wink: Republican my ass, he's a lunatic.
Pretty strong words for a neocon... ;)

- Bill
User avatar
Rising Star
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Townsend, MA
Contact:

Post by Rising Star »

Wow!

I was VERY tempted to write a vitriolic response to the last(nope not last - 2nd to last- Bill beat me to it) post but my Sensei told me to be nice so I will try - as challenging as that may be.

Hmm, could a 'retarded' person compose a vitriolic response?

Does a 'non retarded' person know the definition of vitriole? (without a dictionary at hand)

Darn, I am doing it again.

Ok, I will keep working on it.

John
It's what we do!
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Bill do you know what a neocon is? :lol: You seem to be way off base.

Anywho, Vote for McCain if you hate Obama, fine. Vote for him because you think he's SAFE, and you're ##### retarded. As Ron Paul likes to point out, republicans are elected to cut government spending and end wars. Oh wait, Bush and Co START wars and DRAMATICALLY increase spending. So are you a retard Bill? :lol:

Um, less government BS please.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

TSDguy wrote:
Bill do you know what a neocon is? :lol: You seem to be way off base.
Sigh...

Sorry, TSDguy. Next time I yank your chain, I'll type slower for you. Or should I instead write it out in crayon??

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"McCain was backed by 91 percent of Republicans in the poll, while Obama drew support from just 88 percent of Democrats."

Um, the poll had a margin of error of 3 points, and that was in the overall finding. The sample size for dems and republicans would be smaller and the error larger. So isn't "just" 88% exactly the same thing as 91%, unless the story of the week is a decrease in Obama's numbers?

I do worry about the racism effect. It's real. It's doesn't have to be spiteful or conscious. We all know Jesse Jackson thinks twice when he sees a black man headed for him on the street.
--Ian
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

I'm still not getting the joke... how is calling me- an obnoxiously libertarian fellow who obviously opposes the neocon direction of the republicans- a neocon funny? I wrote out all the obvious stuff since that's usually where the joke likes, but I still don't get it. Kudos for the attempt though.

Edit: I've heard views either way on the matter. Google for youtube videos of people saying niggers should be president. There are just way too many people like that for Obama to become president. The other view is that it's mathematically impossible for McCain to win since racism hides in independent votes.We'll see.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

One doesn't have to attribute the Bradley/Wilder effect to anything. That would be like assuming causality in an epidemiological observation. It just is what it is.

For what it's worth, it has been written about. See the Bradley Effect.

Also note that - again - Virginia was the first state to elect a black governor. Not Massachusetts. Not Minnesota. Virginia.

Image

He's now the mayor of Richmond. He marched the lawn (by me) at one of my UVa graduations. Nice guy... And FWIW, he got my vote for governor. Some may remember him also briefly running for president while sporting the lovely and very wealthy Patricia Kluge on his arm.

Image

Some folks just have that "X" factor. If he knew how to bottle it, he'd be a rich man.

Wilder is one of a long list of "Blue Dog Democrats". Basically he's libertarian-leaning. Many Virginia Democrats are fiscally conservative.
The theory of the Bradley effect is that the inaccurate polls have been skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[6][7] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation.
See the vitriolic posts by TSDguy above. 'Nuff said.

- Bill
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

If I based my vote on choosing the "more 'safe' choice" I'd never vote. The last time people voted in terms of selecting the safe choice was the three times FDR got re-elected during the depression and WWII, and possibly Truman's upset re-election in 1948. The last several elections have strictly been trying to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is hardly voting the safe choice.

And I can't believe you called Gore and Kerry "dreamy" 8O Although in 2000, which are you calling dreamy and which safe? More people pulled the lever for Gore then for Bush, but Bush won the electoral college process. So Gore was the safe candidate?

In 2004, it was not so much a last minute change of mind among voters as the Republicans doing a successful last-minute push to get the faithful out to vote that saved Bush. The Dems learned that lesson and are trying the same strategy this election.
Glenn
User avatar
Uechij
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:01 am

elected or appointed

Post by Uechij »

“...(snip)More people pulled the lever for Gore then for Bush, but Bush won the electoral college process...(snip)

Glenn, if I remember correctly Bush did not win in 2000. Wasn't he our first congressional appointed president? Correct me if I am wrong.
My Shen Is Raised And My Chi Is Strong... I Eat Rice And Train Chi Gung
User avatar
Rising Star
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Townsend, MA
Contact:

Post by Rising Star »

Presidential elections are decided by the electoral college in this country, not popular vote. I am sure that the founding fathers had a good reason for it.

John
It's what we do!
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Bill Glasheen wrote:See the vitriolic posts by TSDguy above. 'Nuff said.

- Bill
Whoops! I meant "Shouldn't" not "should". Complete changes the post, doesn't it. :lol:
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: elected or appointed

Post by mhosea »

Uechij wrote: Glenn, if I remember correctly Bush did not win in 2000. Wasn't he our first congressional appointed president? Correct me if I am wrong.
It is true that Gore received more of the popular vote, but electing a president by popular vote would be, in a word, unconstitutional. IMO, there's no basis for making any ado about popular vote, given that most people understand that the electoral college is in place and may choose not to vote if they live in a stronghold state for one candidate or the other. To change the rules and make it go by popular vote after the election would be like reaching the end of a football game and declaring that this time we weren't going to decide the winner by the scoreboard, rather by who gained the most yards.
Mike
User avatar
Rising Star
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Townsend, MA
Contact:

Post by Rising Star »

TSD

You might also want to check your post of 10/19/08 at 01:32. I think you intended 'lies' and not 'likes".

I always get the happy feeling (hmm maybe I should seek medical atention due to a particular condition lasting more than 4 hours) when people need to invoke germanic or anglo-saxon adjectives in association with their deleterious invectives. (referring to your 10/18/08 23:36 post)

But that is what most do when they can't make the good argument.

John
It's what we do!
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”