"It's refreshing to see the Republicans about to get their asses kicked. 2004 in reverse,."
Seems we heard a lot of that before the 2004 elections... Surprise Surprise
The "polls" have Obama ahead by enough that he should win......however many of the people polled are not telling the truth ..
In my line of work I meet too many back woods rednecks from both sides.. Die hard Republican and Democrat..Although I don't hang out with those guys I do work around them often.
The Republicans will NOT vote for Obama because most Republicans don't usually vote for Democrats.
I have heard quite a few whispers around the farm, and country stores lately, that said they never thought they would vote Republican, but they will this year.. and yes they are Democrats but they are also racists.. One guy that spends more time bashing Republicans than he does working told me he has never voted but he is going to vote Republican this year..
So the moral of the story for those that don't understand ..Millions of White red neck racist Democrats are going to sit home or vote for McCain.
Its going to be a very interesting election..
critical to Obama......the Youth Vote. They love attending Obama rallies on college campus, but the youth have a track record of not voting in large numbers. I have 2 kids in college, and they are relatively engaged in what is going on with the election, but I have to pull teeth to get them to vote in any election, including the use of absentee ballot. How easy is that? Trust me, they won't vote in the morning because they are sleeping. They won't vote in the afternoon because they are in class, sometimes. They won't vote in the evening, because there is a party and vodka jello shot somewhere with their name on it. And since a lot of kids go away to college, I doubt they actually signed up for an absentee ballot.
He ties McCain for men, he's way ahead with women, McCain beats him by 9 points among whites, but blacks go for him by an astounding 90-4. Latinos go for him 65-24.
Meanwhile, while Obama overwhelmingly beats McCain in the youth vote, he also beats McCain handily in the 45-59 group. In fact the only age group that's showing support for McCain in this poll is the 60 and older, and that only by 5 points.
Plus, McCain might be good at campaigning, but Obama still runs circles around him.
Maybe I won't say it's over without a vote being cast, but I'd say before a vote is cast that the odds of McCain winning are about 8-1, IMHO.
-- Modified on 7/28/2008 8:42:32 PM
Poor me just using only anecdotal evidence. I don't give much credence to polling stats. Yep, blacks, hispanics and the youth overwhelmingly prefer Obama, but the question is, will they actually vote? Unfortunately certain voting blocs are just flat-out lazy, and that includes all those college age kids.
See you in November.
for a white person to vote against Obama because he is black, but not racist for a black person to vote for him "because" he is black?
Don't get me wrong, I don't detest Obama because of his race, I have many, many other reasons to vote against him not the least of which is the amount of money he wants to steal from me.
This double standard is laughable.
Eight to one??? Got a good escrow agent? Want to put your money where your mouth is? I'll take as much of that action as you're willing to risk. JackO claimed he was taking all bets, but the little coward was all mouth. How about it Zin? Let's see how much confidence you've got in your guy.
Don't be going all JackO on me now, and you'll always be Zin to me, but that part of the bet is negotiable.
Here are your words.
"Maybe I won't say it's over without a vote being cast, but I'd say before a vote is cast that the odds of McCain winning are about 8-1, IMHO."
I am willing to take your offer of 2-1 however.
But look at that stat. 90-4!
Kind of blows the theory that blacks can't be racist.
This is the same shit going on in the media. No one, I mean no one can say or ask any question of serious issue, talk about anything or say anything. Everything gets turned into racism.
Sick of this crap
First, if they are truthful with you on how they will vote, they will be truthful with pollsters, not necessarily about why they will vote, but they will be about how they vote.
The second thing is that electoral polls now suggest that Obama can lose every contested state and still win the electoral vote.
The third thing, the candidates are separated in most polls by 3-4 points, yet Obama polls as being ahead by over 100 electoral votes. Why? Because in their strong states, they both lead by a lot. This suggests that in the states where he leads, Obama can afford to give a few points to McCain.
See my post below for more problems.
-- Modified on 7/29/2008 11:45:08 AM
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Republican John McCain gained ground in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll that found Democrat Barack Obama's highly publicized foreign trip has not broadened confidence in his ability to be commander of the U.S. military.
The poll, taken Friday through Sunday, showed a surge since last month in likely Republican voters and suggested Obama's trip may have helped energize voters who favor McCain.
It also reflected a jump in support for the U.S. troop increase in Iraq and a country evenly divided between withdrawing troops with and without a timetable. McCain pushed for the extra troops, and Obama opposed them. Obama wants a timetable, and McCain doesn't.
Obama was ahead 47%-44% among registered voters, down from a 6-percentage point lead he had last month. McCain led 49%-45% among likely voters, reversing a 5-point Obama lead among that group. In both cases, the margin of error is +/—4 points.
***(IMO, most folks will probaby say that they will vote for Obama when surveyed. These folks don't want to get branded as rascists when asked by pollsters. This is just my opinion.)
Clink Link to read more...
USA Today is read by a lot of people 
The paper has the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States (averaging over 2.25 million copies every weekday)
and is distributed in all 50 not 57 states
the polls are completely irrelevant ANYWAY until after the VPotus for both sides have been selected.
And FWIW, more people read the Drudge report EVERY HOUR than read USA Today in a week.
Doesn't mean Drudge has any more credibility than the Onion, or 23/6.
What a waste of time this is, extolling the value of polls this early in the campaign.
Didn't figure you for buying in to the lemming brigade Timbow.
-- Modified on 7/28/2008 10:41:44 PM
DoctorGonzo, 7/28/2008 10:40:34 PM
Hey people, come on already. you KNOW polls dont mean SHIT till the end of October...
the polls are completely irrelevant ANYWAY until after the VPotus for both sides have been selected.
he and Moosie have been pulling polls out of their asses for months now,at least when they appear to substantiate their views.
when the Democrat is in the lead, the polls are bogused, biased, & full of shit..
Look, this election shouldn't be close, but it likely will be because red state America continues to vote against their own self-interests & many still buy the scare tactics from pumkinhead Rove & company....I just wish Democrats would run a negative ad for once...
If people decide to punish Republicans in November like they punished Gore in 2000 (for the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal), then Obama would win w/450+ electoral votes..
But Republicans manage to always get carte blanche & the get out of jail free (literally) card from the public, along with very favorable media support....
Imagine if John McBush remotely resembled a real candiate; had at least SOME integrity or character, & actually knew something about foreign policy & the economy..
I don't quote polls period. You and Zin are the ones constantly quoting poll numbers. I've got well over a thousand posts here, I defy you to find a single one where I quote any poll numbers.
You have to quit accusing me of doing shit that YOU do. Just like you wishing the Dims would run a negative ad. You have got to be smoking crack, you democrats have been nothing but negative since Gore lost. and just how the fuck do you link Clinton/Lewinsky to Gore losing in 2000?
You are right this election shouldn't be close, Obama never should have got the nomination in the first place, when he loses in November you Dims will have no one to blame but yourselves.
Easy...Many people thought Clinton "disgraced the office of the president" by having his affair w/an intern there...(Meanwhile, the current president whose name I forget lied about a war, has zero regard for the constitution, had zero regard for flood victims of Katrina, etc., but that's another post)..
People were so mad at Clinton for that affair, you know what they wanted, get ready for this, CHANGE....Many voters thought (the current president whose name I forget) would restore dignity to the White House...
Why do you think Gore lost about 10 states Clinton won in 1996, including his home state of Tennessee - because people wanted to punish the Democrats...And Bill Clinton left this country in pretty damn good shape when he left office, Gore should have cake walked to the WH.....
ignored the main thrust of my post. That you are the one that is constantly ramming polls down our throats, not me.
Gore lost in 2000, not Clinton. Gore was the obvious nominee, but he was and is a horrible candidate for POTUS. I didn't vote against Clinton in 2000, I voted against Gore on his own merits or more accuratley his lack thereof.
"when the Democrat is in the lead, the polls are bogused, biased, & full of shit.."
The last two presidential elections showed the Democrat candidate in the lead...and if you remember that far back, the media was also puffing up Egore and Monsewer Kerry, and talking trash on Bush..Remember the last ditch effort of Rathergate..
Lets not forget the country is almost evenly divided Democrat and Republican.. Lately it has come down to who gets up and votes on election day.
You need to be more specific when discussing how "the media" treat the candidates. The overall media includes both press -- legitimate news organizations -- and non-press operations, such as radio talk shows, cable shows such as O'Reilly, Hannity and Olberman. Given that definition the media are overwhelmingly more sympathetic to Republican candidates, but that has also been true of the press during the 2000 and 2004 elections when the coverage of Bush was much more positive than it was for Gore or Kerry. The same dynamic is happening this year as evidenced by the new study from George Mason University that shows that while Obama has received more press coverage than McCain, that coverage has been much more negative than what McCain is getting.
It's refreshing to see the Republicans about to get their asses kicked. 2004 in reverse, really.
"It's refreshing to see the Republicans about to get their asses kicked. 2004 in reverse,."
Seems we heard a lot of that before the 2004 elections... Surprise Surprise
Gallup released a poll THE SAME DAY with Obama having an eight point lead. To arrive at a poll of likely voters, Gallup used criteria to throw out 109 "unlikely voters," who were overwhelmingly Obama supporters.
Also, the one with Obama in the lead had a sample of 3,000, while the Gallup/USA poll had a size of 900, 109 of which were thrown out.
-- Modified on 7/29/2008 11:41:45 AM
but "likely" voters are the relavant demographic, not registered voters. Because so many register but still do not vote, what they prefer is not particularly relevant. If they don't vote, obviously their preference has no effect.