2008 U.S. Presidential Election - General Election

[mr_pikachu]

Yeah, we can probably move beyond the outdated primary thread now. Hillary's no longer in the race; it's now Obama vs. McCain vs. the others. Time to discuss the general election!

I'll open the discussion with this article: Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?

Let the debates begin!

[RedStarWarrior]

I'll probably vote for Obama, but I like both candidates.

[Blademaster]

Obama '08.

[firepokemon]

I can't say I've been keeping up with whats been happening. I became disillusioned when Hillary Clinton wasn't going to get it. I don't really know that much what has been happening. I like McCain, I'm not sure on Obama. I'll start getting into it in a few months time. But for now I'd say McCain has my support.

As for the possible news bias, yeah I'd say the major networks are more in favour of Obama than they are of McCain. But I think Obama was always going to get more media coverage because its significant that he is the Democrat nominee. So people really shouldn't be surprised. And its not like Fox News and talkback radio don't have their own biases. So I think its largely fair. At the end of the day, it was always going to be the Democrat nominee who'd get more attention. And dare I say, its theirs to lose or to win. McCain needs luck, simply because the United States are more in favour of the left and much more disillusioned on the right.

[Magmar]

More like "much more BROKE because of" the right...

Obama '08 baby!

[Heald]

That could be a problem for McCain. According to pollster.com, pretty much every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain, many of which sport a dangerously small percentage of undecideds. Only about 3 show McCain ahead, and even then only by a couple of points. I was surprised to see that even FOX's poll, considering that many of FOX's staff and much of their audience would probably argue that slavery 'wasn't such a bad thing', shows Obama ahead.

As long as Obama doesn't do anything too spectacularly stupid (considering 'controversies', as painted by America's most conservative of conservatives, such as Obama encouraging the teaching of Spanish in schools, have failed to make any sort of dent in his ratings), it is up to McCain to steal the headlines, which, according to your link mr_pikachu, he is failing to do.

It is also worthy to note that the Independents may once again play a significant part in these elections. Since they are usually more left-wing than the Democrats, they could steal many crucial votes from them. Or, perhaps they have learned that back in 2000 their votes helped begin an 8 year reign of terror that over 6 billion people will remember as the most disastrous presidency in living memory, and then they might think twice before voting for Joe Nobody.

[Roy Karrde]

Heald you do realize that recent polls have the two tied, and that is before the convention or any bounce for McCain. Alot of Conservatives are staying on the fense until McCain chooses Romney or another VP. And besides if polls were any indication as to who would win, we would have President Kerry or President Gore * Yuck * right now.

[firepokemon]

Some would say the United States should have had Gore.

[Calaveron]

I've missed you too Haukino.

[Heald]

Heald you do realize that recent polls have the two tied

According to pollster.com, pretty much every poll shows Obama ahead of McCain, many of which sport a dangerously small percentage of undecideds. Only about 3 show McCain ahead, and even then only by a couple of points.

Pollster.com collects every latest poll score from every source and has both an average of all polls and the results of every poll. At the moment it shows Obama ahead by around 3 points in pretty much every poll, the latest one being from 4 days ago. Their average at the moment puts Obama at 46%, McCain at 43% and the rest are undecideds or third-party.

Therefore, not only do I realise the recent polls, I actually know that in fact the two are not tied.

So...

Roy Karrde, you do realise that recent polls put Obama ahead of McCain

[firepokemon]

I've missed you too Haukino.

Oh Calaveron how lovely to see you ^_^.

And I have to go with Heald here, polls where I go also show Obama leading all the major polls. The thing is regardless of how well these people do in the polls. At the end of the day the American Presidential Election is decided state-by-state-by-state. So really that's where the focus should be.

[mr_pikachu]

Pollster.com collects every latest poll score from every source and has both an average of all polls and the results of every poll. At the moment it shows Obama ahead by around 3 points in pretty much every poll, the latest one being from 4 days ago. Their average at the moment puts Obama at 46%, McCain at 43% and the rest are undecideds or third-party.

Therefore, not only do I realise the recent polls, I actually know that in fact the two are not tied.

So...

Roy Karrde, you do realise that recent polls put Obama ahead of McCain

I disagree. Frankly, I'm more trusting of sites that take the major polls (not just every poll). RealClearPolitics, for instance, does not have the 3% margin you suggest.

Rather, it's 4.7%.

...I will say this. There have been studies in the past about how polling prior to an election is often inaccurate when the primary competitors are of different races. Some people, when confronted publicly about their vote, feel pressured to support a minority candidate in order to avoid looking like a racist; some of these votes change when the voters enter the privacy of the polling booth. I believe the effect is often projected at around 5%, which may be why some analysts argue that the election is essentially tied at present.

In any event, it makes it harder to trust any sort of poll (including exit polling) unless there is a blatantly obvious advantage for one side or another (say, over 10%). Whichever way this election goes, it's going to be interesting to watch.

Regarding the article, I agree that McCain is doing himself a disservice by allowing Obama to have the limelight. He's getting a combination of positive and negative publicity while McCain is garnering no attention. Assuming that the public will vote against someone just because he gets more negative press than you is a recipe for disaster.

[Clark]

McCain. I'm White.

[Heald]

McCain. I'm White.

Ace just won the thread.

I'll agree with what you're saying mr_pikachu regarding the inaccuracy regarding a minority candidate, and I will now admit that polls do not decide the election, especially considering we're 3 months away from the big day and the two candidates haven't begun to really campaign yet, neither have we had the debates (of course, whether the debates matter or not is another question, considering Bush's embarrassing performances even though he managed to win both elections). The polls can, and will, change. However, as the current trend is going. McCain has lost his lead and over the last months the margin Obama has over McCain has been increasing, with no sign of slowing down. At this moment in time, it seems that Obama's support could be growing exponentially, and only time will tell if or when it will peak. For McCain's camp to not be doing anything in the face of Obama's growing support is showing dangerous complacency on McCain's behalf.

One idea that I've been toying with is that McCain has never really been a President kind of guy. The people that have come and gone, such as Kerry, Gore, Romney, Huckabee, both Clintons and both Bushs, have all shown great zeal in their campaigns and ever since they entered politics you could tell that they had great aspirations. McCain has never struck me as that kind of guy. He is an idealist at heart and is a man who wants to change people's opinions, rather than being one to force his opinions on other people. I like McCain, and I honestly wouldn't mind him being President, but I really don't believe he truly wants to win. Considering his record as a maverick amongst the Republicans and does lean to the left in many of his views, he might be making such a half-assed attempt at this shot simply because he thinks Obama would be a better President than him. This is just meaningless conjecture, but it is something that does strike me about his character.

[Roy Karrde]

Pollster.com collects every latest poll score from every source and has both an average of all polls and the results of every poll. At the moment it shows Obama ahead by around 3 points in pretty much every poll, the latest one being from 4 days ago. Their average at the moment puts Obama at 46%, McCain at 43% and the rest are undecideds or third-party.

Problem is most polls do not factor in leanings or third parties, when those are factored in it is either tied or Obama has only a 1 point lead as of early this week. Not to mention while polls were released earlier, many of them outside of Rasmussen were conducted weeks ago and do not show the most up to date reaction of the American people. Now granted Obama will get a bump from his Fact Finding/Photo Op trip, just as he got a bump from winning the nomination. But just like in the nomination, the numbers are only soft.

Roy Karrde, you do realise that recent polls put Obama ahead of McCain

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_c..._tracking_poll

Rasmussen Today, Obama only has +1 which puts him under the margin of error, and mind you this is the time when he should be getting a huge bounce from the Middle East Photo Op er.. Fact Finding tour.

Infact if you want to talk about recent polls look at the daily polls here.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...tch_up_history

A bunch of ties, or +1s, with the highest being a +3 last week. All within the margin of error.

The polls can, and will, change. However, as the current trend is going. McCain has lost his lead and over the last months the margin Obama has over McCain has been increasing, with no sign of slowing down.

You must either be blind or neglectful, you do realize that last month polls were coming out with Obama at a 8 to 15 point advantage. Now earlier this week its either 3 points, well within the margin of error, or tied. So if anything it is Obama who has been losing.

At this moment in time, it seems that Obama's support could be growing exponentially, and only time will tell if or when it will peak. For McCain's camp to not be doing anything in the face of Obama's growing support is showing dangerous complacency on McCain's behalf.

Again you are neglectful of reality, as well as neglectful of Obama's recent loss of support of the net roots.

he might be making such a half-assed attempt at this shot simply because he thinks Obama would be a better President than him.

Problem is if you look at how McCain has acted recently you can see that he believes Obama would truely be a horrible President and he is right. He attacks Obama repeatedly over Iraq, hammering him for not supporting the Surge, and he attacks Obama over energy and his unwillingness to help change our energy policy. McCain sees Obama as a dangerous man, some one who's nieveness and stupidity could do real harm to this country, and you know what?

He's right.

[Heald]

Rasmussen Today, Obama only has +1 which puts him under the margin of error, and mind you this is the time when he should be getting a huge bounce from the Middle East Photo Op er.. Fact Finding tour.

I love it how whenever it's a Dem, it's a photo op, but whenever it's a Republican, it's a serious thing with lots of important people and talks and stuff.

You must either be blind or neglectful, you do realize that last month polls were coming out with Obama at a 8 to 15 point advantage. Now earlier this week its either 3 points, well within the margin of error, or tied. So if anything it is Obama who has been losing.

Blind or neglectful my ass. This is from less than 10 days ago:

[Roy Karrde]

I love it how whenever it's a Dem, it's a photo op, but whenever it's a Republican, it's a serious thing with lots of important people and talks and stuff.

Well it would be helpful that Obama did not release his intentions and plans for Iraq BEFORE going over there for his Fact Finding Mission. Not to mention many media outlets have been reporting that Obama has been doing very little on substance ( especially in Afghanistan ) and a whole lot on just photo ops.

Blind or neglectful my ass. This is from less than 10 days ago:

Come to me when you have a real group of polls from say Real Clear Politics, or Rasmussen, and not... well Blogspot. And a graph that is a bit more detailed then "Lets put up alot of lines with very little detail or explination".

[Heald]

Come to me when you have a real group of polls from say Real Clear Politics, or Rasmussen, and not... well Blogspot. And a graph that is a bit more detailed then "Lets put up alot of lines with very little detail or explination".

I just checked the source again for that graph, and if you're not a statistician, I'll explain. The graph is a scatter diagram of all polls ranging from the 13th March to the 13th of July. The blots are the most significant averages from particular dates. The lines represent a line of best fit, which show the correlation between the average scores. The correlation appears to fit the diagram very well, so I assume it is an accurate projection. The diagram therefore shows that, on average, polls are showing a growth in support for Obama, and consequently, a fall in support for McCain. It also factors in the third parties.

As for where the polls sources came from, the source provided a list:

ABC/Post
Zogby/Reuters
CNN
Times/Bloomberg
FOX
Rasmussen

Oh snap!

Look, before this continues, I'm not on some kind of hidden agenda to try and promote Obama. I really couldn't give two shits as to who the next chimp you decide to dress up as your next President is going to be. These are just the facts. You can take them or leave them, but it isn't worth your while trying to dress them up as something they are not. You clearly want Obama not to win. That's fine, but pretending that he isn't enjoying what may be short-lived support isn't going to make him go away.

[Roy Karrde]

I just checked the source again for that graph, and if you're not a statistician, I'll explain. The graph is a scatter diagram of all polls ranging from the 13th March to the 13th of July. The blots are the most significant averages from particular dates. The lines represent a line of best fit, which show the correlation between the average scores. The correlation appears to fit the diagram very well, so I assume it is an accurate projection. The diagram therefore shows that, on average, polls are showing a growth in support for Obama, and consequently, a fall in support for McCain. It also factors in the third parties.

As for where the polls sources came from, the source provided a list:

ABC/Post
Zogby/Reuters
CNN
Times/Bloomberg
FOX
Rasmussen

Oh snap!

And thus that is your problem, you tried to push off your graph as being something recent, when in reality it is a long term graph with no true idea of when and where the different points came from. For example the only poll that would give Obama such a lead seen on your graph would be the LA Times/Bloomberg poll which was shown to be a false and fake poll. While the polls that apparently your graph neglects such as Reuters and Rasmussen would have the graph within the 2 to 3% points range and not nearly a 10% difference.

If you want to use a graph which factors in LA Times/Bloomberg then please be my guest, but do not try to pass it off as anything more than the sham that it is. So I would suggest you use more up to date sources.

[mr_pikachu]

Roy, I hate to say it, but a 4.7% edge by the RCP polls is still significant. Again, it's hard to say whether that advantage will be retained over the coming months, particularly due to the pressure factor I outlined earlier, but in terms of sheer statistics it's hard to argue "margin of error" here.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I hate to say it, but a 4.7% edge by the RCP polls is still significant. Again, it's hard to say whether that advantage will be retained over the coming months, particularly due to the pressure factor I outlined earlier, but in terms of sheer statistics it's hard to argue "margin of error" here.

Well mind you the margin of error differs, and that the two polls that are raising it up are CNN and ABC which were conducted nearly two weeks ago and before the events of Obama's vote on the FISA act. Anyway to give you a bit of a idea of how close it was before Obama's bounce, here is Gallup Daily. Now mind you the latest poll is the bounce from the trip and is soft numbers so do not expect it to be his true numbers.



Now take that, add in dailies from Rasmussen,

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...tch_up_history

And you get a idea of how tight the race actually is.

[Heald]

And thus that is your problem, you tried to push off your graph as being something recent, when in reality it is a long term graph with no true idea of when and where the different points came from.

Hence why it is called 'time series data' as it can be used to show concepts such as growth. Which was what I meant when I said Obama's support had been growing. So even if you ignore the so-called fake Times/Bloomberg poll, that happened in June, whereas the latest figures are from July, meaning the Times/Bloomberg figure would have had little effect on the time series data. In fact, if the Times/Bloomberg figure was ignored, that would have lowered the average polled figure for Obama in June and therefore would have made the growth in support he had in the last month actually greater. Therefore, it still proves my point that Obama's support is growing.

[Roy Karrde]

Hence why it is called 'time series data' as it can be used to show concepts such as growth. Which was what I meant when I said Obama's support had been growing. So even if you ignore the so-called fake Times/Bloomberg poll, that happened in June, whereas the latest figures are from July, meaning the Times/Bloomberg figure would have had little effect on the time series data. In fact, if the Times/Bloomberg figure was ignored, that would have lowered the average polled figure for Obama in June and therefore would have made the growth in support he had in the last month actually greater. Therefore, it still proves my point that Obama's support is growing.

Alright lets take in for a second the belief that your poll is accurate up to 10 days ago, since the latest polls up to today have shown the cannidates tied or very close to eachother as I provided, then that only proves that Obama's support has suddenly dropped. Or it shows that your graph is wrong and you should stay with more accurate sources. Either way this argument is some what insane seeing how your graph is already out dated by 10 days, and how it is not very detailed.

[Drusilla]

More like "much more BROKE because of" the right...

Obama '08 baby!

I can't agree more. (y)

[Jeff]

Media bias? John who? Oh yeah that's right, there's someone running against Obama, but the media's been making me forget about him. Back when Hillary was still in the race the attention to the Democrats was understandable considering the Republican race was already clinched, but now? I haven't even heard much about McCain in the local media and I live in a conservative area.

I'm voting for McCain, although it's not like it'll matter. Expecting Maryland's electoral votes to go for a Republican is like expecting Nader to win, it's just not going to happen. So, I guess I'll be more focused on the local races like I was back during the primaries.

[Roy Karrde]

Media bias? John who? Oh yeah that's right, there's someone running against Obama, but the media's been making me forget about him. Back when Hillary was still in the race the attention to the Democrats was understandable considering the Republican race was already clinched, but now? I haven't even heard much about McCain in the local media and I live in a conservative area.

The funny thing about the media bias ( and lets make no mistake there is media bias ). Is that it's going to make McCain look a hell of alot more sympathetic to alot of people. I think it was today's Rassmussen poll that shows that a increasingly amount of Americans believe there is a media bias for Obama. That is really going to start to backfire against the Obama campeign if that number continues to rise, and people start to see the media ganging up against this poor old POW Vet.

[MToolen]

Is it okay that I don't like either candidate? Each has his own glaring flaws and I can't help but see those over their good points. For McCain, he has that car battery contest, not to mention the fact that, if elected President, he will be 72 when he takes office. 72! And I don't mind Obama's race, creed, or experience; taxes on gas companies who have little to nothing to do with oil prices (especially when a majority of the income in my area comes from ConocoPhilips's largest refinery, located a mile south of my location) are a different story, though. I like to think that I'm a better man for thinking through things; still, I don't like what I see and it leaves me worried.

[firepokemon]

Of course you can dislike both candidates. On one hand you have a nominee with not much experience, grand ideas but can he make the right judgements when he needs to? Can he achieve his policy claims? Those are things still to be answered. And of course on the other side you have a nominee who basically wants to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't that much to like.

But most people here didn't seem to favour Clinton either and its not like Guliani or Romney were exactly inspiring. But that's kinda backwards looking. If I had to choose a better candidate right now for me it would be McCain. But I've been rather out of the loop as of late.

[mr_pikachu]

If I had to choose a better candidate right now for me it would be McCain. But I've been rather out of the loop as of late.

That's exactly the problem; when it comes to McCain, everybody has been "out of the loop." Even though Obama's looking rather weak right now, when you can't put McCain up against him and say, "Hey, that looks better," it's hard to be confident in going that way.

I think that not being present to take advantage of this opportunity could hurt McCain with moderates. He should be showing his face, if only for comparison purposes.

[Roy Karrde]

And of course on the other side you have a nominee who basically wants to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn't that much to like.

Well lets be realistic, both cannidates plan to maintain the wars in Afghanistan, and Obama will keep the war going in Iraq for another 16 months at the least. The problem with Afghanistan though isn't necassarly troops, but other things that need to be taken care of. As for Iraq, Obama is treading very dangerously with his timeline proposal, and really it could have the possibility of us resending troops into Iraq ( ala Afghanistan ) to take care of the problem, and thus prolonging the war alot longer than what McCain would have done.

[.hacker]

I'm voting for McCain.

I can't to see what happens on this thread once election day arrives (Bush vs Kerry on TPM was epic).

[Clark]

woopie. go outside ladies. mass media is just shit to control you little piggie's brains. let it go. mccain could go lynch a bunch of black people later, i wont care. media is wasting our resources to making the world better.

[Blademaster]

That is really going to start to backfire against the Obama campeign if that number continues to rise, and people start to see the media ganging up against this poor old POW Vet.

ROFLMAO.

[Roy Karrde]

ROFLMAO.

Hey its already happening, 50% of the public believes the media is unfairly helping Obama.

Anyway a variety of Obama news came out today, but I think the most interesting article was from CBS News.

I'll break up the interview into various parts.

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

As Obama has said repeatedly, lets bring us back to his statement after his vote on the Surge.

"I am not persuaded, that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violance there, infact I think it will do the reverse." - Obama on MSNBC

And lets not forget.

"Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve"

and

"My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now."

Couric: But yet you're saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it … so I'm just trying to understand this.

Obama: Because … it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

Its funny how he mentions Afghanistan first, Afghanistan was experiencing very low violance before the Surge happened. Infact it did not even begin to spike till the Summer of 2007, while the vote happened in January of 2007. Infact the only reason violance started to spike in Afghanistan was becuase Al Qaeda was getting their ass kicked so badly becuase of the surge, that they had to retreat and move back to the Afghanistan war.

As for the Economic Crisis, now correct me if I am wrong but we didn't even start to see any major signs of the housing crisis until the middle of 2007, so unless Obama had a Crystal Ball no one would have predicted the extent of the economic crisis.

As for solving the energy demand, lets not forget that Obama is the one that is against solving the energy demand any time soon.

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Nope.

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Lets not forget that Obama's approach would not have made America safe, it would not have provided political reconciliation, infact at that time the Iraqis were ramping up for a Civil War. As for Obama saying the US troops contributed to a reduction of violance.

"I am not persuaded, that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violance there, infact I think it will do the reverse." - Obama on MSNBC

[Crystal Mew]

Oh man, to be honest I don't like either of them very much. I'm still not sure who I'll be voting for...gah

I'll start thinking about it more seriously towards election time, but for now I'm undecided

[mr_pikachu]

Obama vows support for Israel in Jerusalem visit

Potential policy or political pandering? Just as importantly, how does this affect Obama's voter base and sway the undecideds and moderates?

He's already grabbing headlines with this foreign tour. Not that I'd expect anything different, considering McCain's relative absence from the spotlight.

On a related note, I read an interesting article earlier today about the status of McCain's VP search. Would this be a good moment to make a move and take attention from Obama's trip? Or is it too early in the race for McCain to play that card, since Obama can stir up speculation at will about his running mate choice (Clinton or not)? For that matter, is there any potential backlash from such an obviously timed move? Any thoughts?

[Heald]

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

[shazza]

It's okay everyone I voted for Kevin Rudd, so obviously I want Obama to win.

[Roy Karrde]

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

Now you know how Bush supporters felt in 2004 ~.^. Now it's the Democrat's turn to have the bumbling idiot that loves to screw up!

[firepokemon]

Can we have a separate topic for people who hate Obama? I don't really feel like reading about every time Obama wipes his nose and the political connotations it has.

Is poor wee Heald getting all upset? I do agree that there are people in this thread who do go a bit overboard in their opinions of Obama. But frankly, its better than hearing people bashing the right all the time like on so many other forums. Its quite refreshing. Even if they go overboard at times.