*official* 2008 us election thread

[Daaaaave]

new time poll released

http://www.srbi.com/time_poll.html

some quick sum up here.

giuliani with an 18 point swing since january poll, 14 point lead over mccain

Total (%)

Rudy Giuliani 38

John McCain 24

Newt Gingrich 12

Mitt Romney 7

giuliani even polling 5 points higher than mccain in the west. even worse for mccain, the lead spreads to 19 points in a mccain/giuliani/romney 3-way.

Total (%)

Rudy Giuliani 49

John McCain 30

Mitt Romney 12

on the dem side, clinton's lead has narrowed from 19 points to 12 over obama.

Total (%)

Hillary Rodham Clinton 36

Barack Obama 24

Al Gore 13

John Edwards 11

gore had a pickup of 4 points since january and edwards stayed even, so obama is picking up undecideds.

amazingly, obama is already leading clinton in the midwest and is dead even with her in the west. clinton holds huge leads in the south and northeast, as well as with female voters.

for the general election, giuliani leads democrats narrowly, democrats lead mccain.

Giuliani is up just 3 points over Clinton, 47% - 44%, Giuliani has a 5 point lead over Obama, 47% - 42%. The trial heats are even tighter against McCain. Clinton and McCain are in a dead-heat, (46%-45%), while Obama edges out McCain, 46% - 42%.

conclusions: obama is becoming more visible (a 14% jump in people who report to know some or a great deal about him) and those people seem to like what they see.

unfortunately, there's no 3-way clinton/obama/edwards poll to see how those 13% gore voters would break.

edwards is falling behind and needs to break through soon or he'll lose money and support by the end of the year.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

Until I see numbers from a non-partisan group, bs. I got one of those calls once from a republican group, the first thing they do is screen you based on party affiliation. If you tell them you are of the party they don't want - they hang-up.

one is not necessarily related to the other. polls have to be calibrated by methodology to hit so many gop and so many dems and so many indies and so on. not to mention male/female, black/white...it could just be that all of their other quotas were full and they needed an indie when they called to solicit.

that it's a push poll is certainly a possibility, but it's a bit early to be running the polls moving voters screen and I doubt the dscc would commission a poll just to throw money into a dead race.

[Kizzak]

It's utterly hilarious to see such early numbers and realize people are drawing conclusions off of them.

It's nice to see numbers and all, but it means absolutely nothing the moment someone gets upset in Iowa and/or N.H.

Then for two weeks or so, you hear nothing but media falling all over themselves to embrace the new guy and diss the old one.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

Until I see numbers from a non-partisan group, bs. I got one of those calls once from a republican group, the first thing they do is screen you based on party affiliation. If you tell them you are of the party they don't want - they hang-up.

one is not necessarily related to the other. polls have to be calibrated by methodology to hit so many gop and so many dems and so many indies and so on. not to mention male/female, black/white...it could just be that all of their other quotas were full and they needed an indie when they called to solicit.

that it's a push poll is certainly a possibility, but it's a bit early to be running the polls moving voters screen and I doubt the dscc would commission a poll just to throw money into a dead race. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I said I was an indy.

Then they asked which party I was more likely to support, I said neither, which party I identified more with - neither.

Than they asked which party was the closest to my set of issues.

Answered democrat, all I heard then was "Thank you" followed by a click and a dial tone.

[Kizzak]

Also, most legit polls don't use quotas in terms of ideology because then that biases their reported results. Only push polls or similarly sketchy polls where a particular result is desired use that sort of methodology of quota by party or ideology.

[Kizzak]

I should correct that, it depends on what sort of poll I suppose.

The national polls where they take the overall temperature of the country (finding # of supporters for each party, etc) wouldn't have a quota. Issue polls *might* have a quota if they are reporting results based on party only and no summed total results.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

It's utterly hilarious to see such early numbers and realize people are drawing conclusions off of them.

It's nice to see numbers and all, but it means absolutely nothing the moment someone gets upset in Iowa and/or N.H.

Then for two weeks or so, you hear nothing but media falling all over themselves to embrace the new guy and diss the old one.

this race is different, for reasons already renumerated by jason and I in this thread.

if you don't think these polls will drive donors (like geffen) to obama because they prove his "electability", then there's not much I can say.

what do you think it is that forced vilsack out of the race so early?

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

I should correct that, it depends on what sort of poll I suppose.

The national polls where they take the overall temperature of the country (finding # of supporters for each party, etc) wouldn't have a quota. Issue polls *might* have a quota if they are reporting results based on party only and no summed total results.

check the fine print. any poll worth it's salt has a methodology for sample polling. anything less is unscientific. like zogby interactive unscientific.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

It's utterly hilarious to see such early numbers and realize people are drawing conclusions off of them.

It's nice to see numbers and all, but it means absolutely nothing the moment someone gets upset in Iowa and/or N.H.

Then for two weeks or so, you hear nothing but media falling all over themselves to embrace the new guy and diss the old one.

this race is different, for reasons already renumerated by jason and I in this thread.

if you don't think these polls will drive donors (like geffen) to obama because they prove his "electability", then there's not much I can say.

what do you think it is that forced vilsack out of the race so early? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm laughing AT those donors who are using the polling data this early.

There's still a full year and a half for someone to make a tragic screw-up or to have a skeleton come out of their closet. Likewise, there's almost a full year before the first primary so someone can make a massively positive impact between now and then as well.

[Kizzak]

At this point in the game, they should be giving not to those they think will win - but those that align closest to their values.

This is how you get these compromise candidates that really say nothing and get dragged into embracing Southern politics. People playing electoral math way too early and forcing everyone serious to adopt basically the exact same positions.

[Daaaaave]

time:

The Poll's partisan breakdown is as follows:

32% Democrat

29% Republican

27% Independent

zogby:

The telephone survey, which asked Democrats, Republicans, and non–aligned voters in which primary or caucus they planned to vote next year, was conducted Feb. 22–24, 2007, and included 1,078 likely voters (397 Republicans - MOE: +/- 5.0 percentage points, 439 Democrats - MOE: +/- 4.8 percentage points).

marist:

The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 978 registered voters including 331 Democrats, 277 Republicans, and 342 independent voters. The results for registered voters are statistically significant at ±3.5%.

and so on. charlie cook actually lists his full methodology completely, including % of evangelicals, age groups, etc...

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

It's utterly hilarious to see such early numbers and realize people are drawing conclusions off of them.

It's nice to see numbers and all, but it means absolutely nothing the moment someone gets upset in Iowa and/or N.H.

Then for two weeks or so, you hear nothing but media falling all over themselves to embrace the new guy and diss the old one.

this race is different, for reasons already renumerated by jason and I in this thread.

if you don't think these polls will drive donors (like geffen) to obama because they prove his "electability", then there's not much I can say.

what do you think it is that forced vilsack out of the race so early? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm laughing AT those donors who are using the polling data this early.

There's still a full year and a half for someone to make a tragic screw-up or to have a skeleton come out of their closet. Likewise, there's almost a full year before the first primary so someone can make a massively positive impact between now and then as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how else do you propose to determine who is making waves nationally and who is a vanity candidate?

the race is already on. too many people misunderstand those polls into thinking they're supposed to gauge november 08. they're not. they're gauging where people are today and are just as useful as any other poll under those guidelines.

you seem to feel that these polls are either static or fortune tellers and the truth is they're neither. they are a useful benchmark to see trends in candidacies.

edwards has made no movement in virtually any poll since he announced 2 months ago. that is statistically relevant. obama has allegedly caught up with hillary in one of her core demographics (blacks). that is not only statistically relevant but may fundamentally change how the two frame their runs.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

christ, Webb/Obama just not enough experience at a national level. that does make me cream myself though, America would be again represented by a pair of insanely bright leaders.

Schweitzer would be better than Sebelius imo, more likely to have sway over the Rockies.

Only problem with Schweitzer is Montana governor elections are simultaneous with presidential elections, and he's got another term he can run for.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

At this point in the game, they should be giving not to those they think will win - but those that align closest to their values.

This is how you get these compromise candidates that really say nothing and get dragged into embracing Southern politics. People playing electoral math way too early and forcing everyone serious to adopt basically the exact same positions.

true, but naive. you spend your money where you think it'll do the most good. that's politics at the very core of it's nature.

as for compromise candidates and southern politics, that poll shows that obama may be leading, *today*, in the west and midwest. that's california, washington, ohio, illinois and michigan...among other. I don't know how many primary delegates that is, but those 5 states alone are roughly 125 electoral votes, virtually half way to the presidency.

this shows that hillary's double digit lead may be meaningless if it's all coming from a few states. clinton blows obama out in new york, massachusetts and florida, but loses close contests everywhere west of the ohio river. you bet your ass obama and clinton's crew are looking over those numbers very carefully.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

christ, Webb/Obama just not enough experience at a national level. that does make me cream myself though, America would be again represented by a pair of insanely bright leaders.

Schweitzer would be better than Sebelius imo, more likely to have sway over the Rockies.

Only problem with Schweitzer is Montana governor elections are simultaneous with presidential elections, and he's got another term he can run for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah...I don't see schweitzer hopping on board anyone's campaign, but it's heartening both for markos's libertarian democrat movement and for montana itself that schweitzer is near the top of many people's wishlists.

staying in the west, patty murray is another one basically everyone thinks highly of. haven't heard her mentioned for a potential vp slot though and her nationwide visibility is zero.

[Gordon Comstock]

Obama will win.

[bflaff]

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

Obama will win.

arianna huffington made a good point about the whole geffen episode.

the real change in that whole business wasn't obama flexing his muscles that he wasn't going to be pushed around and it wasn't hillary successfully getting obama off his holier-than-thou pedestal and down in the mud.

it was a reminder that having bill on your side is a double edged sword, the clinton white house had some huge problems and hillary was usually in the middle of it.

it also (for the first time publicly, I think) had a major player wonder aloud about this bush/clinton dynasty we've been living in since 1980.

both of these things were items many people had said under their breath but were afraid to say out loud. geffen's remarks made it okay to talk about two of hillary's biggest weaknesses again.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

I like al. I think he's a good guy, he's smart and very funny.

never for president though.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

time:

The Poll's partisan breakdown is as follows:

32% Democrat

29% Republican

27% Independent

zogby:

The telephone survey, which asked Democrats, Republicans, and non–aligned voters in which primary or caucus they planned to vote next year, was conducted Feb. 22–24, 2007, and included 1,078 likely voters (397 Republicans - MOE: +/- 5.0 percentage points, 439 Democrats - MOE: +/- 4.8 percentage points).

marist:

The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 978 registered voters including 331 Democrats, 277 Republicans, and 342 independent voters. The results for registered voters are statistically significant at ±3.5%.

and so on. charlie cook actually lists his full methodology completely, including % of evangelicals, age groups, etc...

If you look at those - you see specifically that they didn't start out with any particular quota in mind - they wound up with those numbers after the poll, otherwise you'd see either a consistent percentage difference between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

What they do is they report the demographics of their survey but they don't hang up if they don't get the specific party they are looking for.

re: current polls

Who cares who is making waves nationally at this point. Who was the front runner for the Dems pre-primary in 04?

Buchanan could have stolen the 96 nomination - not that it mattered.

Clinton tanked before the primaries in 92 - was down to single digits in the winter of 91, but still managed to claw his way back into it and won.

According to Gallup polls, the front runners for the Democratic nomination: 72: Muskie, 76: Wallace, 80: Kennedy, 84: Mondale, 88: Hart, 92: Cuomo, 2000: Gore, Lieberman 04.

That's 2 out of 8 times.

The point is that it's pretty much a waste to devote money based on early polls.

If you get behind your candidate in the early going, he could be the one that makes the late-run just before or during the primaries.

If you abandon your candidate, then we get stuck with the same old electoral math nominees that inspire nobody and that are run to hopefully steal a few states in the south/midwest because of their conservative views.

The polls are nice as a sort of tracking mechanism, but as Clinton showed in 92, shouldn't be used as some sort of gradation of the progress of a candidate.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

I like al. I think he's a good guy, he's smart and very funny.

never for president though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather vote for Gore than any of the current front-runners tbh.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

time:

The Poll's partisan breakdown is as follows:

32% Democrat

29% Republican

27% Independent

zogby:

The telephone survey, which asked Democrats, Republicans, and non–aligned voters in which primary or caucus they planned to vote next year, was conducted Feb. 22–24, 2007, and included 1,078 likely voters (397 Republicans - MOE: +/- 5.0 percentage points, 439 Democrats - MOE: +/- 4.8 percentage points).

marist:

The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 978 registered voters including 331 Democrats, 277 Republicans, and 342 independent voters. The results for registered voters are statistically significant at ±3.5%.

and so on. charlie cook actually lists his full methodology completely, including % of evangelicals, age groups, etc...

If you look at those - you see specifically that they didn't start out with any particular quota in mind - they wound up with those numbers after the poll, otherwise you'd see either a consistent percentage difference between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

What they do is they report the demographics of their survey but they don't hang up if they don't get the specific party they are looking for.

re: current polls

Who cares who is making waves nationally at this point. Who was the front runner for the Dems pre-primary in 04?

Buchanan could have stolen the 96 nomination - not that it mattered.

Clinton tanked before the primaries in 92 - was down to single digits in the winter of 91, but still managed to claw his way back into it and won.

According to Gallup polls, the front runners for the Democratic nomination: 72: Muskie, 76: Wallace, 80: Kennedy, 84: Mondale, 88: Hart, 92: Cuomo, 2000: Gore, Lieberman 04.

That's 2 out of 8 times.

The point is that it's pretty much a waste to devote money based on early polls.

If you get behind your candidate in the early going, he could be the one that makes the late-run just before or during the primaries.

If you abandon your candidate, then we get stuck with the same old electoral math nominees that inspire nobody and that are run to hopefully steal a few states in the south/midwest because of their conservative views.

The polls are nice as a sort of tracking mechanism, but as Clinton showed in 92, shouldn't be used as some sort of gradation of the progress of a candidate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there is a consistent percentage of roughly 35 indy-33 dem-30 gopish. the shades of difference mark the different methodologies each pollster uses based on their own research and census data.

again, this is based on polling history and census data and each company differs in their computations. this does not change the fact that their polls are calculated so that the respondees fit into their breakdowns.

otherwise, an errant 500 calls could end up 75-25 for the gop. just a flip of the coin error, but what would that poll be worth? nothing.

who cares who's making waves? activists, reporters, candidates, donors, pundits, staff and everyone else who pays attention to politics.

clinton didn't tank in 91. he was an unknown in 91. a virtual impossibility today because of the amount of focus on the race and the early candidacies. trying to link this campaign historically is a non-starter, again for reasons jason and I explained on page 1.

and not that it makes a whit of difference, but gallup polls are always ****. I notice you didn't bother to contrast with gop early polls, because they've been dead on virtually every time.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

Defending him is pathetic. And to say Sharpton's problem was a lack of seasoning is very funny. Anyway, enjoy the love in on this thread.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

I like al. I think he's a good guy, he's smart and very funny.

never for president though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather vote for Gore than any of the current front-runners tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume the Al that Daaaaave was referring to was Al Sharpton. Let's just call him "The Rev".

Btw, saw in the other Prez thread somone proposing Joe Lieberman as a plausible 'third way' candidate who could unite the middle, or something like that. I can't scream NO loudly enough.

[Daaaaave]

gunnerfan. some gq random who popped up during the wc. hasn't been right about a single thing since then. nader would poll higher nationally than joementum

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by bflaff:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

I like al. I think he's a good guy, he's smart and very funny.

never for president though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd rather vote for Gore than any of the current front-runners tbh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume the Al that Daaaaave was referring to was Al Sharpton. Let's just call him "The Rev".

Btw, saw in the other Prez thread somone proposing Joe Lieberman as a plausible 'third way' candidate who could unite the middle, or something like that. I can't scream NO loudly enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would vote for the Reverend Al before any of the rest including Gore.

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Missed out on the Gore-fest earlier today, so all I'll say at this point is that trying to claim that Gore is a hypocrite on the environment is pathetic.

The right needs to stop trying to zing Democrats with pitiful gotchas that only knuckledraggers could think stung, and start thinking up serious policy prescriptions. Because right now, they have absolutely nada.

And I have time for Al Sharpton, but he was pretty much a clown when he first emerged as a national figure Tawana Brawley case) and didn't become more seasoned until much later.

Defending him is pathetic. And to say Sharpton's problem was a lack of seasoning is very funny. Anyway, enjoy the love in on this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason why it's pathetic: Gore publicizes the fact that the scientific evidence on the problem of global warming, and our role in making it worse, is overwhelming, standing up against only Michael Crichton, Sunoco science, and truthiness science that says, "Did you it snowed in upstate New York last week? FO global warming, haw haw."

To skip past all of that, because you can't argue with facts, and concentrate instead on trying to jab the person who is hammering home this point over and over, is to pander to a ridiculous group of people who think that discrediting Gore with a playground smear job is sufficient to descredit everything about global warming. I'm tired of this kind of fool determining who gets elected and which voice carries weight.

Of course, now that the insane conservapedia is up and running, we can argue with two sets of facts. /o\

From the entry on global warming:

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is no evidence at all.[1][2] On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."[3]

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .[4]. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.[5]

[Daaaaave]

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

[Daaaaave]

and here's a note just for aj.

one little sidenote about obama poll numbers in the wapo. his breakout number among blacks? a huge FU to that **** debra dickerson.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

time:

The Poll's partisan breakdown is as follows:

32% Democrat

29% Republican

27% Independent

zogby:

The telephone survey, which asked Democrats, Republicans, and non–aligned voters in which primary or caucus they planned to vote next year, was conducted Feb. 22–24, 2007, and included 1,078 likely voters (397 Republicans - MOE: +/- 5.0 percentage points, 439 Democrats - MOE: +/- 4.8 percentage points).

marist:

The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 978 registered voters including 331 Democrats, 277 Republicans, and 342 independent voters. The results for registered voters are statistically significant at ±3.5%.

and so on. charlie cook actually lists his full methodology completely, including % of evangelicals, age groups, etc...

If you look at those - you see specifically that they didn't start out with any particular quota in mind - they wound up with those numbers after the poll, otherwise you'd see either a consistent percentage difference between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

What they do is they report the demographics of their survey but they don't hang up if they don't get the specific party they are looking for.

re: current polls

Who cares who is making waves nationally at this point. Who was the front runner for the Dems pre-primary in 04?

Buchanan could have stolen the 96 nomination - not that it mattered.

Clinton tanked before the primaries in 92 - was down to single digits in the winter of 91, but still managed to claw his way back into it and won.

According to Gallup polls, the front runners for the Democratic nomination: 72: Muskie, 76: Wallace, 80: Kennedy, 84: Mondale, 88: Hart, 92: Cuomo, 2000: Gore, Lieberman 04.

That's 2 out of 8 times.

The point is that it's pretty much a waste to devote money based on early polls.

If you get behind your candidate in the early going, he could be the one that makes the late-run just before or during the primaries.

If you abandon your candidate, then we get stuck with the same old electoral math nominees that inspire nobody and that are run to hopefully steal a few states in the south/midwest because of their conservative views.

The polls are nice as a sort of tracking mechanism, but as Clinton showed in 92, shouldn't be used as some sort of gradation of the progress of a candidate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there is a consistent percentage of roughly 35 indy-33 dem-30 gopish. the shades of difference mark the different methodologies each pollster uses based on their own research and census data.

again, this is based on polling history and census data and each company differs in their computations. this does not change the fact that their polls are calculated so that the respondees fit into their breakdowns.

otherwise, an errant 500 calls could end up 75-25 for the gop. just a flip of the coin error, but what would that poll be worth? nothing.

who cares who's making waves? activists, reporters, candidates, donors, pundits, staff and everyone else who pays attention to politics.

clinton didn't tank in 91. he was an unknown in 91. a virtual impossibility today because of the amount of focus on the race and the early candidacies. trying to link this campaign historically is a non-starter, again for reasons jason and I explained on page 1.

and not that it makes a whit of difference, but gallup polls are always ****. I notice you didn't bother to contrast with gop early polls, because they've been dead on virtually every time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the probability that a poll sampling Georgia is going to have a problem filling their number of Republicans as opposed to Democrats or Independents?

Again, after I called myself an independent - they pushed me into stating which side I was closer to. Does that really sound like a legit poll to you?

Admittedly I was wrong on the general methodology of most polls (other than the demographic ones). However, given that the one I had did not consider Independent as a separate group and pushed respondents to one of the two parties and subsequently hung up once that one was determined - you would have a hard time arguing that it was a legit poll.

The only reason I even brought it up was that for a polling group like Garin-Hart-Yang that gets hired by candidates, it isn't all that surprising that they might try to distort the data to try to increase the money flowing into their client's account for the campaign.

re: Clinton

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974539,00.html

He was the front-runner post straw polls, but before N.H. he tanked as a result of the Flowers scandal and draft dodging.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DF...34A15752C0A964958260

This time in 1991, he was in 11th place of course - but that only further solidifies my position that making decisions based on who can get elected this early is just silly.

[Andrew K]

That he gives people such easy ammunition is what makes him a poor leader for the movement.

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

[Daaaaave]

luck of the draw, there's a probability to everything. maybe they just needed 1 lesbian vegan democrat to finish things up and you only hit 2 of 3?

yes. some polls sort only by dem/rep and don't allow for indies. some allow indies but separate them into lean-dem and lean-rep. probably should have asked them. or at least written down the name of the polling group to do some research

you seem to be stuck on whether this was a "legit" poll or not. I'm telling you, from experience, that at this point in a campaign it makes absolutely no sense for a group to skew the polling because they need as accurate info as possible. those famous "non-legit" polls comes a couple weeks before elections to confuse voters and mess with campaigns.

ghy was hired by the dnc/dscc, not an individual candidate. does it make their results more questionable? yes, but it does not mean they can simply be written off. at this point of the campaign, no one is doing polls except national papers (who aren't interested in local and state races) and firms hired by the dnc or rnc.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

A proclaimation that completely ignores history.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

That he gives people such easy ammunition is what makes him a poor leader for the movement.

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home.

Why shouldn't that be criticized?

[bflaff]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

Definitely didn't mean you personally. Sorry if there was any confusion. I was addressing the authors of that attack on Gore.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

tbf, the problem with the GW movement is that the it is based on short-run trends and assumptions of the future yet are making statements in the affirmative that if we don't do this or that something will happen.

I certainly don't disagree that we are screwing up the planet, but I'd prefer if it was less that the climate system is going to go this way or that way. Instead show just how fragile the climate is and state that if we go too far in any way - we could screw the globe up horribly. We actually don't understand all the intricacies involved in the interactions of the complex systems involved in the global climate nor do we know what would necessarily happen one way or the other.

On the one hand, we've found evidence that pollution increases the albedo and lowers the temperature (India vs nearby unpolluted areas), on the other hand - we know that pollutants and other things released into the atmosphere like CO2 absorb more of the sunlight and increase the solar radiation that enters the earth's system.

If the temperature keeps increasing - we could have a massive change of climate as a result of a consistent temperature increase. On the one hand, melting polar ice caps would decrease the albedo and could create a run-away heating effect. On the other hand, those same melting ice caps could kill the thermohaline circuit and bring about another mini ice-age.

Furthermore, we don't know where exactly we are on the Earth's natural cycle of period extremely warm periods and ice ages. It could be that all the industrial pollution prevented us from entering another ice age 100 years ago.

The point is rather than doomsday predictions one way - it would be a lot better if we admitted we really don't know what is going to happen, but if we push the system too far in any direction it will break and we don't know just how far too far is. Like being in a completely dark room where one might shorten their movements and carefully reach for a wall to follow to a light switch or the door, it's a good idea to reduce human impact until we have a better understanding of the system.

The problem is they don't want to admit that sort of thing and instead make grand statements that discredit (in the public's eyes) all the legitimate science behind it if they turn out to be wrong.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

A proclaimation that completely ignores history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

how's that contract with america coming along without newt? how about the moral majority without ralph reed? armpac/k-street isn't doing so well these days without delay. promise keepers died off once bill mccartney left. funny how these movements dry up and blow away as soon as their leaders are censured/indicted/get found out.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home.

Why shouldn't that be criticized? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

certainly you can criticize. that would be morally and ethically consistent.

after all, the microphone he uses in his talks use *gasp* electricity.

gore would be so much better off if he simply went away. what a fantastic proponent for conservationism he'd be then.

[Andrew K]

The charismatic individual is what propels all political movements in America regardless of political orientation.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

luck of the draw, there's a probability to everything. maybe they just needed 1 lesbian vegan democrat to finish things up and you only hit 2 of 3?

yes. some polls sort only by dem/rep and don't allow for indies. some allow indies but separate them into lean-dem and lean-rep. probably should have asked them. or at least written down the name of the polling group to do some research

you seem to be stuck on whether this was a "legit" poll or not. I'm telling you, from experience, that at this point in a campaign it makes absolutely no sense for a group to skew the polling because they need as accurate info as possible. those famous "non-legit" polls comes a couple weeks before elections to confuse voters and mess with campaigns.

ghy was hired by the dnc/dscc, not an individual candidate. does it make their results more questionable? yes, but it does not mean they can simply be written off. at this point of the campaign, no one is doing polls except national papers (who aren't interested in local and state races) and firms hired by the dnc or rnc.

If it was hired by DNC/DSCC - then I'm less inclined to believe it's questionable. I figured it was hired by the state democratic party.

As for the poll, the only demographic they asked was party affiliation. I led them on for about a minute before stating I would lean Dem.

Moving off this pointless subject atm, it's amazing how inept the Democratic party is.

There's a bit of controversy in Texas, Georgia, and some other states over the proposal to require the HPV vaccine for school kids.

This would be the issue I leap on today to force the Republican's to choose a side to hold them to next year.

Basically religious folk are against it because it might make middle schoolers and high schoolers more promiscuous.

Make it a national issue now and force the Republicans to either come out against it to appeal to their base, or for it and alienate their base.

You either kill their support with independents or you alienate them with their base and increase the likelihood of a 3rd party candidate stealing votes from their candidate.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

tbf, the problem with the GW movement is that the it is based on short-run trends and assumptions of the future yet are making statements in the affirmative that if we don't do this or that something will happen.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah...I got you on one hand, and hundreds of scientists on the other.

damned atheist liberal grant-grubbing scientists.

the problem with the gw movement is it seems to think logic will prevail when morons will deny global warming as a myth with their last smog-filled dying breath because they're too ignorant to see what's right in front of their stupid faces.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Andrew K:

The charismatic individual is what propels all political movements in America regardless of political orientation.

true, I remember when the civil rights movement ended after mlk was shot.

a more fundamental flow in your argument is the use of the word "charismatic". gore is as wooden as ever.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

tbf, the problem with the GW movement is that the it is based on short-run trends and assumptions of the future yet are making statements in the affirmative that if we don't do this or that something will happen.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah...I got you on one hand, and hundreds of scientists on the other.

damned atheist liberal grant-grubbing scientists.

the problem with the gw movement is it seems to think logic will prevail when morons will deny global warming as a myth with their last smog-filled dying breath because they're too ignorant to see what's right in front of their stupid faces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, if you read what I said - you'd see I agree with the science, the trends, and the policies. The issue is the unequivocable statements that A or B will happen when we really don't understand the impact of each system on each other.

Hence I'm arguing against the way they are approaching the public relations side of the problem not the science behind it.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

luck of the draw, there's a probability to everything. maybe they just needed 1 lesbian vegan democrat to finish things up and you only hit 2 of 3?

yes. some polls sort only by dem/rep and don't allow for indies. some allow indies but separate them into lean-dem and lean-rep. probably should have asked them. or at least written down the name of the polling group to do some research

you seem to be stuck on whether this was a "legit" poll or not. I'm telling you, from experience, that at this point in a campaign it makes absolutely no sense for a group to skew the polling because they need as accurate info as possible. those famous "non-legit" polls comes a couple weeks before elections to confuse voters and mess with campaigns.

ghy was hired by the dnc/dscc, not an individual candidate. does it make their results more questionable? yes, but it does not mean they can simply be written off. at this point of the campaign, no one is doing polls except national papers (who aren't interested in local and state races) and firms hired by the dnc or rnc.

If it was hired by DNC/DSCC - then I'm less inclined to believe it's questionable. I figured it was hired by the state democratic party.

As for the poll, the only demographic they asked was party affiliation. I led them on for about a minute before stating I would lean Dem.

Moving off this pointless subject atm, it's amazing how inept the Democratic party is.

There's a bit of controversy in Texas, Georgia, and some other states over the proposal to require the HPV vaccine for school kids.

This would be the issue I leap on today to force the Republican's to choose a side to hold them to next year.

Basically religious folk are against it because it might make middle schoolers and high schoolers more promiscuous.

Make it a national issue now and force the Republicans to either come out against it to appeal to their base, or for it and alienate their base.

You either kill their support with independents or you alienate them with their base and increase the likelihood of a 3rd party candidate stealing votes from their candidate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would the dems get into the hpv fight in texas? rick perry is splitting republicans well enough as-is, as I'm sure andrew will tell you.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

Why shouldn't that be criticized?

certainly you can criticize. that would be morally and ethically consistent.

after all, the microphone he uses in his talks use *gasp* electricity.

gore would be so much better off if he simply went away. what a fantastic proponent for conservationism he'd be then.

There should be some degree of leadership by example. Gore calls for people to make needed sacrifice, which I completely agrees with, but he doesn't himself actually sacrifice because he has enough money that he doesn't need to be inconvienced by a reduction in energy use. If he needs to travel he pays extra to "offset" his private plane usuage. He signs up for Green energy so he can use as much as he wants. It's the modern day version of indulgences. That's not sacrifice. Living a more austere life is sacrifice. No, I don't expect him to live in a shack and fly coach, but if he wants to lead by example then he could do a lot better than he is doing.

[Daaaaave]

Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

conservative movements are primarily prefigured by demagogues. the demagogue and the movement are intertwined. limbaugh, newt, hannity, o'reilly, coulter, delay, and so on. their cult of personality reigns over anything they have to say. and this has been going on for so long that conservatives think this the natural order of things. without the figurehead to speak, the movement dies.

so since they've had their asses handed to them factually over global warming over and over and over again, they're trying to kill the messenger with the erronous (and pitiful) logic that the conservationist movement will die without gore there to lead it.

tbf, the problem with the GW movement is that the it is based on short-run trends and assumptions of the future yet are making statements in the affirmative that if we don't do this or that something will happen.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah...I got you on one hand, and hundreds of scientists on the other.

damned atheist liberal grant-grubbing scientists.

the problem with the gw movement is it seems to think logic will prevail when morons will deny global warming as a myth with their last smog-filled dying breath because they're too ignorant to see what's right in front of their stupid faces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, if you read what I said - you'd see I agree with the science, the trends, and the policies. The issue is the unequivocable statements that A or B will happen when we really don't understand the impact of each system on each other.

Hence I'm arguing against the way they are approaching the public relations side of the problem not the science behind it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you had read the science and the policies, you'd see that nowhere does it state anything "unequivocably". it states that a preponderance of evidence points in a certain direction. not even close to the same thing and they chose their words carefully.

you seem to have been reading either republican talking points or lazy msm coverage and accepted it prima facie.

[Kizzak]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

luck of the draw, there's a probability to everything. maybe they just needed 1 lesbian vegan democrat to finish things up and you only hit 2 of 3?

yes. some polls sort only by dem/rep and don't allow for indies. some allow indies but separate them into lean-dem and lean-rep. probably should have asked them. or at least written down the name of the polling group to do some research

you seem to be stuck on whether this was a "legit" poll or not. I'm telling you, from experience, that at this point in a campaign it makes absolutely no sense for a group to skew the polling because they need as accurate info as possible. those famous "non-legit" polls comes a couple weeks before elections to confuse voters and mess with campaigns.

ghy was hired by the dnc/dscc, not an individual candidate. does it make their results more questionable? yes, but it does not mean they can simply be written off. at this point of the campaign, no one is doing polls except national papers (who aren't interested in local and state races) and firms hired by the dnc or rnc.

If it was hired by DNC/DSCC - then I'm less inclined to believe it's questionable. I figured it was hired by the state democratic party.

As for the poll, the only demographic they asked was party affiliation. I led them on for about a minute before stating I would lean Dem.

Moving off this pointless subject atm, it's amazing how inept the Democratic party is.

There's a bit of controversy in Texas, Georgia, and some other states over the proposal to require the HPV vaccine for school kids.

This would be the issue I leap on today to force the Republican's to choose a side to hold them to next year.

Basically religious folk are against it because it might make middle schoolers and high schoolers more promiscuous.

Make it a national issue now and force the Republicans to either come out against it to appeal to their base, or for it and alienate their base.

You either kill their support with independents or you alienate them with their base and increase the likelihood of a 3rd party candidate stealing votes from their candidate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would the dems get into the hpv fight in texas? rick perry is splitting republicans well enough as-is, as I'm sure andrew will tell you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just Texas is the point, it's also Georgia and a handful of other states.

If the democrats get involved now, they can force the republican candidates to come out in favor or against the proposal. It's a tactical move to continue to get the base ****ed off at them or create another thing to divide them from independents with once the nominees are determined.

[Andrew K]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

true, I remember when the civil rights movement ended after mlk was shot.

a more fundamental flow in your argument is the use of the word "charismatic". gore is as wooden as ever.

Last time I checked I don't believe CF lightbulbs were flying off the shelves, so his lack of charisma could be holding the movement back for all I know.

[Jason the Yank]

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K:

That he gives people such easy ammunition is what makes him a poor leader for the movement.

And I don't know what context you are using "you" but I'm quite the opposite of a Global Warming skeptic.

you did read the stat I quoted that said, for his region, his per square foot energy usage is below average, right?

so what it comes down to is we crucify him for having the audacity to be rich and own a large home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knew you'd see the day when Republicans were criticizing people for being successful?