HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) Heh, Obama beating McCain in North Dakota. linky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 TPM Dakota Wesleyan poll. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) TPM Dakota Wesleyan poll. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...tracker/ndpres/ ND-Pres (Apr 15 Dakota Wesleyan) Obama (D) 46%, McCain ® 42% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 07:07 PM) TPM Dakota Wesleyan poll. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Based on some other polls, the following "red" states might be graspable... Alaska (McCain +5), Montana (McCain +5) Obama NEEDS NM, CO, and WI or he is toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Well, if we did go by popular vote, it would cut way down on travel. Hell, visit NY, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Houston maybe San Francisco, Detroit, Orlando, Atlanta, and a few others, maybe 12-15 states and you have a campaign. At least 25 states would drop off the Presidential map and another 10 states would only be convered if it was strategic for a candidate. A REP could not just write off California and a DEM would have to come to Texas. But no body would have to got to Idaho or Vermont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:53 PM) Well, if we did go by popular vote, it would cut way down on travel. Hell, visit NY, Chicago, LA, Dallas, Houston maybe San Francisco, Detroit, Orlando, Atlanta, and a few others, maybe 12-15 states and you have a campaign. At least 25 states would drop off the Presidential map and another 10 states would only be convered if it was strategic for a candidate. A REP could not just write off California and a DEM would have to come to Texas. But no body would have to got to Idaho or Vermont. They only really spend their time and money in a few key states anyway. Even with the Electoral College, many states are still ignored. In fact, it'd seem that a majority of the population is ignored since many of the most populous states are guaranteed to go one way or the other. Here's a map of where Kerry and Bush spent their time and money 6 weeks prior to the 2004 election: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Cool! Thank you, that is really interesting. I would like to see an overall, this was the final 6 weeks. As we all know, the campaign runs for over a year, countring the primaries. Just counting the general, we have a lengthy run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 05:07 AM) Cool! Thank you, that is really interesting. I would like to see an overall, this was the final 6 weeks. As we all know, the campaign runs for over a year, countring the primaries. Just counting the general, we have a lengthy run. Unfortunately that's the only one I've been able to turn up. Still, though, counting just the general, how many times do you think you'll see Obama or Clinton down in Texas? How many times will McCain bother coming to IL, CA, or NY? With the way they are politically, the most populous states get ignored. Instead, candidates focus heavily on states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I also think it suppresses voter turnout in the deep blue or deep red states. We all "know" that Illinois is going to go D, so a vote for McCain here doesn't really count for anything. If it were a national election, a vote for McCain would count just as much as a vote for Obama/ Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 As of yesterday Survey USA, who has been the most accurate of the polling companies who have done 5 or more polls according to the list AHB posted yesterday, gives Clinton a 14 point lead in PA. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport...55-655afea1a9bf Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #13711 One Week to PA Democratic Primary, Clinton Still Atop Obama By Double Digits: In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 04/15/08, one week to the vote, Hillary Clinton remains comfortably atop Barack Obama, 54% to 40%, according to SurveyUSA's 4th tracking poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Scranton. In 3 previous releases, SurveyUSA has shown Clinton ahead by 19 points one month ago, 12 points two weeks ago, 18 points last week and, today, 14 points. More should be made of the consistency across these polls than the comparatively small movement from one to the other. Clinton has polled at 55%, 53%, 56%, and 54%. Obama has polled at 36%, 41%, 38%, 40%. SurveyUSA does not show the contest necessarily tightening, nor does SurveyUSA show the race necessarily "tight." Clinton has a slight advantage among men, as she has in 3 of 4 SurveyUSA polls. Clinton has an significant advantage among women, as she has in 4 of 4 polls. Of note: Obama has gained ground among Democrats who attend religious services regularly. He had trailed Clinton by as many as 19 points among regular church goers, but today closes to within 7. Clinton and Obama are even among those who have graduated college. Clinton leads 2:1 among those who have not. The contest remains tight in Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia; the lead has changed hands in each of the 4 tracking polls. In Southwest PA, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton gained ground this week. In West Central PA, which includes Johnstown, Clinton retook ground this week that Obama had claimed earlier. In South Central PA, which includes Harrisburg, Obama gained ground. In NE PA, which includes Scranton, and in NW PA, which includes Erie, there was little movement. Among liberals, Obama moved atop Clinton for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 (edited) First the girl in the 3AM said she supports Obama... now a Clinton supporter in one of her ads isnt registered to vote in PA!! Clyde Thomas, who sports a goatee in the ad and says, "the good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said," is actually registered in New Jersey. He voted there for Clinton Feb. 5. He only recently moved to Bethlehem, Pa. Edited April 16, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 For what it's worth: Post "Bitter-Gate", Obama now has a 3 point LEAD in PA. Yes it is not Survey USA, but it is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) For what it's worth: Post "Bitter-Gate", Obama now has a 3 point LEAD in PA. Yes it is not Survey USA, but it is interesting. PPP is trash. Their polls have been all over the map. The polls in PA seem all over the place, but the general impression I get is that a once 20 point lead for Clinton is probably more like high single digits right now. The debate tonight might push it one way or the other - either put Clinton back in charge, or make it a dead even race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) The debate tonight might push it one way or the other - either put Clinton back in charge, or make it a dead even race. My fear is Clinton will TRY to go scorched earth this evening. Bring up Resko or that terrorist guy. She'll do anything and a NATIONAL TV debate is a great forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:08 AM) PPP is trash. Their polls have been all over the map. Per the table I posted a few pages back, PPP has an average error of 7. While high, let's translate that. Obama +3 = Clinton +4. VERY small win for Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:11 AM) My fear is Clinton will TRY to go scorched earth this evening. Bring up Resko or that terrorist guy. She'll do anything and a NATIONAL TV debate is a great forum. Well of course she will do those things (although, I don't know what you mean by 'terrorist guy'). But that will only help Obama in this case, more than likely. Clinton's attacks work in the normal course of things. But if you look at the debates, the ones where she employed those tactics, it backfired. The debates are different than run of the mill media barrage. A person hears rumors and attacks from multiple sources over time, and they start to believe them. On the other hand, when you see an individual on TV throwing around insults, people tend to not like it as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) Well of course she will do those things (although, I don't know what you mean by 'terrorist guy'). Oh you gotta listen to more Rush and Hannity then. this is a "big" story. Apparently Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Clinton's recent attack ad was tested: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Obama picks up endorsements from 3 superdelegates as well as Bruce Springsteen today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 12:14 PM) Obama picks up endorsements from 3 superdelegates as well as Bruce Springsteen today. The Boss would've been helpful on Super Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:10 AM) Clinton's recent attack ad was tested: Seemed to go like this: Clinton supporters loved it (Surprise!) Obama supporters hated it (Surprise!) People in the middle didn't really care. How does that work anyway? They sit you in a chair and hand you a potentiometer and you turn it to how much you like/ dislike something at any given instant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) How does that work anyway? They sit you in a chair and hand you a potentiometer and you turn it to how much you like/ dislike something at any given instant? Exactly right. Props for calling it a potentiometer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) Oh you gotta listen to more Rush and Hannity then. this is a "big" story. Apparently Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html Don't have time to read it atm but I'm assuming that's that board he sits on where the guy who is a convicted felon also sits, which automatically means that Obama not only is ideologically in line with whatever the guy went to prison for, he actually had something to do with it and continues to support it to this day. About right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:42 AM) Don't have time to read it atm but I'm assuming that's that board he sits on where the guy who is a convicted felon also sits, which automatically means that Obama not only is ideologically in line with whatever the guy went to prison for, he actually had something to do with it and continues to support it to this day. About right? Well, the article doesn't say that, but yes.. that is the POV of Rush and Hannity. He served on aboard with him... ergo they are in cahoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) Well, the article doesn't say that, but yes.. that is the POV of Rush and Hannity. He served on aboard with him... ergo they are in cahoots. Okay. Again, this by itself is a non-story. But I guess it means nothing when you meet people and have a meeting with them, unless it's George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - then it's a news story worthy of digging up everything you can. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I read something on that before and it just sounded like a really irresponsible use of the word "terrorist" by some people that want to get into scuzzbag politics. That's another political pet peeve of mine. It just doesn't pass the smell test to me. So he has some loose connections with some leftist with a radical history... so? Who in politics doesn't have connections like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts