DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

What are you smoking? Carlson, Scarborough and Buchanan are not liberals. And why would any of them jump into the Dem primary?

I am sure he was joking and forgot the green. He had to be. Buchanan a liberal? If he sees that post, he's going to have a conniption.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just in inject a little fun, the AP got to ask seven candidates from each party about some of their personal side. Favorite foods, alternate career path, etc. This is part 1 of the series, and apparently there will be follow-up articles.

 

My favorites...

 

--Dennis Kucinich's alternate career choice: Astronaut

--Duncan Hunter's alternate career choice: Outdoor writer

[Balta1701]

Who Will play Barack Obama on SNL?

[BigSqwert]

Who Will play Barack Obama on SNL?

Perhaps Reggie Miller can host one week and play the part.

[Rex Kickass]

I agree that talk radio is conservative-dominated. It was a medium written off by most people as useless until conservative shows took over. Sports talk also helped revive am and talk radio shows in general. But for network tv, conservative shows are extremely hard to find. And size-wise, Fox doesn't match the big 3. For 'cable news', yeah they are a big player. But does Joe Sixpack watch The Factor, or Nightline? And newspapers, how many conservative leaning papers are there, because there surely are some that lean so far the left you would think they would fall over.

 

There's the Wall Street Journal - circulation 1.7 million. The New York Post. The Washington Times.

 

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, CNN has Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck.

 

USA Today leans conservative enough that it was the newspaper that got the most access to the White House in the first term of the Bush administration.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's the Wall Street Journal - circulation 1.7 million. The New York Post. The Washington Times.

 

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, CNN has Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck.

 

USA Today leans conservative enough that it was the newspaper that got the most access to the White House in the first term of the Bush administration.

USA Today is a poor excuse for a newspaper, and bias is the least of its worries. Its like a newspaper directed at 4th graders, with little or no substance, pretty graphics showing nonsensical statistics, and an eye-catching layout.

[kapkomet]

There's the Wall Street Journal - circulation 1.7 million. The New York Post. The Washington Times.

 

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, CNN has Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck.

 

USA Today leans conservative enough that it was the newspaper that got the most access to the White House in the first term of the Bush administration.

I get the Wall Street Journal, but it certainly isn't for the "conservative" news. Duh.

[Rex Kickass]

USA Today is a poor excuse for a newspaper, and bias is the least of its worries. Its like a newspaper directed at 4th graders, with little or no substance, pretty graphics showing nonsensical statistics, and an eye-catching layout.

 

So the newspaper version of Fox News then? *rimshot*

 

I get the Wall Street Journal, but it certainly isn't for the "conservative" news. Duh.

 

It does have a VERY influential op/ed page and leans quite conservative.

[kapkomet]

That's true. However, the majority of the people don't get the WSJ for the op/ed page. Andif you think about it, "conservatives" and the type of people who get the WSJ actually sort of fit together. Pro-business and democrats aren't usually in the same sentance.

[southsider2k5]

That's true. However, the majority of the people don't get the WSJ for the op/ed page. Andif you think about it, "conservatives" and the type of people who get the WSJ actually sort of fit together. Pro-business and democrats aren't usually in the same sentance.

 

Well when the very people you keep talking about taxing the rich, and they are the ones reading this paper... Let's just say I can see where their bias would lie.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's true. However, the majority of the people don't get the WSJ for the op/ed page. Andif you think about it, "conservatives" and the type of people who get the WSJ actually sort of fit together. Pro-business and democrats aren't usually in the same sentance.

I have subscribed to the WSJ on and off over the years, and I don't think I've ever read the op-ed stuff. The business news and related stories are all I read in there.

[kapkomet]

Well when the very people you keep talking about taxing the rich, and they are the ones reading this paper... Let's just say I can see where their bias would lie.

Yea, their bias is in HillaryCare ™.

[NorthSideSox72]

New poll from Newsweek shows that all three major Dem candidates beat their Rep counterparts in theoretical races. Also, Bush's approval rating now at 28%, the lowest since Carter in 1978. Plus some other interesting stats on the poll, see link.

 

Hillary still leading the Dem group, so her high negs still haven't caught up yet.

[southsider2k5]

New poll from Newsweek shows that all three major Dem candidates beat their Rep counterparts in theoretical races. Also, Bush's approval rating now at 28%, the lowest since Carter in 1978. Plus some other interesting stats on the poll, see link.

 

Hillary still leading the Dem group, so her high negs still haven't caught up yet.

 

Ah once again the three types of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics...

 

The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. leaners.

 

So they used 25% more Dems vs Repubs.... Huh, I wonder why they came up with the worst results ever? There was a nice little sample bias for the people who don't like Bush the most!

[jasonxctf]

Obama doing pretty well with Republicans. Surprising.

[BigSqwert]

So they used 25% more Dems vs Repubs.... Huh, I wonder why they came up with the worst results ever? There was a nice little sample bias for the people who don't like Bush the most!

Maybe it was too difficult to find people who still like Bush?

[NorthSideSox72]

Ah once again the three types of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics...

So they used 25% more Dems vs Repubs.... Huh, I wonder why they came up with the worst results ever? Their was a nice little sample bias for the people who don't like Bush the most!

It says right above your quote, in the article, that the results were weighted. How the weighting was done exactly for that particular list, I do not know. Also, you are making the assumption that the country is 50/50 on Dem/GOP leaning. That may or may not be the case, again, I don't know. But given the way things have been the last few years, and the fickle nature of voters (mentioned earlier today), it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that there are more Dem leaners than GOP leaners nowadays.

 

If you really wanted to look for bias here, I'd want to know three things. One, how did they randomize their calls/contacts. Two, in larger scale polls or multi-poll results, what is the current percentage leaning for each party in the country. And three, if they leaner precentage doesn't match the current national percentages, then how did they weight the results of the non-party-specific polls.

[southsider2k5]

Maybe it was too difficult to find people who still like Bush?

 

The irony is if this was Fox News, the screams of bias would have been coming fast and furious from all over the place... Because its not, no one cares.

[NorthSideSox72]

The amazing thing is, I primarly posted this because of the non-Bush stats. The 1 on 1 matchups, which are broken down by party, so there is no party bias. I guess I should have just not even mentioned the Bush 28% part.

 

Rasmussen, which uses a daily fold-over and a lot larger sampling, has Bush at 37% approval. In case anyone cares.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Beyond Books: Oprah Winfrey’s Seal of Approval Goes Presidential

 

By JUSTON JONES

Published: May 7, 2007

It’s usually pretty easy to quantify what Oprah Winfrey’s stamp of approval can mean: her book club catapults titles to the top of best-seller lists, and her nods at other products send consumers racing to buy them.

 

Last week, for the first time, Ms. Winfrey endorsed a political candidate, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat from Illinois. In an interview on “Larry King Live” on CNN, she said she was backing the senator “because I know him personally.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/business...amp;oref=slogin

[Balta1701]

If you really wanted to look for bias here, I'd want to know three things. One, how did they randomize their calls/contacts. Two, in larger scale polls or multi-poll results, what is the current percentage leaning for each party in the country. And three, if they leaner precentage doesn't match the current national percentages, then how did they weight the results of the non-party-specific polls.

A couple different companies do record self-identified party identification numbers...in other words, you call up people at random and ask which way they're leaning. The trends in those numbers lately look godawful for the Republicans.

 

This is the Pew poll, which is a totally different company than the Newsweek poll (and therefore a totally different sample)

 

Rassmussen also tracks those numbers, and they have shown a very similar trend, although it looks like they don't push leaners as hard (Pew seems to have a much higher response rate). Rasmussen does show a significant erosion of people self-identifying as Republicans and a corresponding increase in independents.

 

None of these prove that Newsweek did not use a biased sample of course, it's always possible that they're an outlier without more data. But on the question of how the party identification numbers are looking...well, let's just say there's probably a reason why the name "President Bush" was only mentionned 1 time during the entire Republican debate last week.

[kapkomet]

And why "Reagan" was said more times then people can count.

 

Pluuuuheease, none of these screwtards will ever get even close to that standard.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd just like to point out that since the first primary election isn't until January, that I refuse to pay any attention until the end of June.

[southsider2k5]

Could their be a late surprise entry for the elections... on the Democratic side?

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22145-2807r.htm

 

Of the 25 major players who helped raise at least $100,000 for Mr. Gore for the 2000 campaign, at least 12 have not donated or publicly committed to a candidate.

[Balta1701]

Link

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois criticized American auto companies today for doing too little to lessen the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and said the United States must adopt a more aggressive energy policy.

 

In a speech that hit hard at the failings of Detroit automakers, Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Japanese companies had done far better than their Detroit counterparts to develop energy efficient vehicles.

 

Mr. Obama, speaking to a sold-out meeting of the Economic Club of Detroit, proposed stricter fuel economy standards, wading into a debate under way in Washington on increasing the corporate average fuel economy, now at 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and 24 miles a gallon for light trucks.

 

“For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars,” he said, according to a text of his remarks. “And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry.”

Applause.