2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[Steff]

I believe you have to be licensed to be bonded and insured as well as being part of the union.

 

I think he could own the business but would not get any type of work as he can not be insured and that is not who you want working on your home/business.

 

I don't think you can get a business license without being licensed in that field. That's how it works for electricians anyway.

[Steff]

Watch the Deadlist Catch, Mike Roe will tell you this often while looking at the radar map of where the boats are.

 

Been watching it for years but I don't recall Sig giving me that particular Geography lesson :-)

 

[Texsox]

I'm aware of that however you have to be licensed to own the business.

Steff, what you mean is 100% correct. You expect when you hire a plumber, that the work performed, is by a licensed plumber. However, you do not have to be licensed to employ licensed plumbers. You have to be licensed to "sign off" on the job. Most cities and towns require that. So just like that 19 year old kid a couple years ago who inherited a bar, he could own it, he just could not serve or consume alcohol there.

 

Even better, I was talking yesterday with the owner of a day and night medical clinic I'm trying to help me with my camp. He actually owns three clinics in the area. He is an attorney. No medical training. Zero. Nada.

[Texsox]

Been watching it for years but I don't recall Sig giving me that particular Geography lesson :-)

Sig, sexiest captain

[Steff]

Steff, what you mean is 100% correct. You expect when you hire a plumber, that the work performed, is by a licensed plumber. However, you do not have to be licensed to employ licensed plumbers. You have to be licensed to "sign off" on the job. Most cities and towns require that. So just like that 19 year old kid a couple years ago who inherited a bar, he could own it, he just could not serve or consume alcohol there.

 

Even better, I was talking yesterday with the owner of a day and night medical clinic I'm trying to help me with my camp. He actually owns three clinics in the area. He is an attorney. No medical training. Zero. Nada.

 

 

I don't know any plumbers but I do know 2 electricians who own their own business and they claim that they couldn't get a business license without first being licensed (also called certified) so I'm just going off of that. It doesn't make sense for it to be the other way but I concede on this topic.

 

[BigSqwert]

...unless Obama is against kids coming to his rallys.

 

No, that's the McCain campaign.

[southsider2k5]

Steff, what you mean is 100% correct. You expect when you hire a plumber, that the work performed, is by a licensed plumber. However, you do not have to be licensed to employ licensed plumbers. You have to be licensed to "sign off" on the job. Most cities and towns require that. So just like that 19 year old kid a couple years ago who inherited a bar, he could own it, he just could not serve or consume alcohol there.

 

Even better, I was talking yesterday with the owner of a day and night medical clinic I'm trying to help me with my camp. He actually owns three clinics in the area. He is an attorney. No medical training. Zero. Nada.

 

Plus there are different municipal, county, and state regulations depending on exactly where you are. Really both of you are probably right depending on where you are familiar with.

[DBAHO]

Whoops;

 

Earlier, Senator McCain had attempted to introduce Mr Wurzelbacher at a rally in the town of Defiance without realising he was absent.

 

"Joe's with us today. Joe, where are you? Where is Joe?" Senator McCain asked, only to be greeted by an awkward silence. "Is Joe with us today? Joe, I thought you were here today."

 

Senator McCain swiftly brushed off the moment however.

 

"Well, you're all Joe the Plumbers!" Senator McCain said. "So all of you stand up!"

[Texsox]

Plus there are different municipal, county, and state regulations depending on exactly where you are. Really both of you are probably right depending on where you are familiar with.

It didn't make sense to me either until it was explained this way. Companies like ServiceMaster and other large operations employ licensed workers, but the owners aren't always licensed in a field. Think of it this way, it would be impossible for a publicly traded company to get a license. It would be impossible for a builder to get a licensed to build an entire house. What most places are concerned with is who does the work, not who owns the business. As long as the work is being done by a licensed/cxertified worker, who actually owns the company could be ten states away.

 

But YMMV, some areas may have written laws to keep larger companies out or someone from doing electrical & plumbing for example.

[Heads22]

The McCain campaign is just a running joke anymore. I'm not sure how they think anyone can/will take them seriously.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama camp feels confident:

In a conference call with reporters this morning, Obama manager David Plouffe announced that the campaign was going with ads in McCain's home state of Arizona, as well as in the red states of Georgia and North Dakota.

 

Plouffe said that these three states were enough in the "realm of possibility" that the campaign wanted to put an "extra effort" in them in the final days. "We think things have tightened up in Arizona," he said. "As I mentioned, we are running a positive ad there. It is Sen. McCain's home state; we are cognizant of that. But we think a positive ad there can help make the case."

 

Also on the call, Plouffe said the Obama campaign was looking strong in the state of Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia. And he said that they saw paths to victory in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio.

 

What's more, Plouffe said the campaign is pleased with the early vote numbers they are seeing in several states, particularly in North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada.

[StrangeSox]

The latest "Obama staffer" email making the rounds on the conservative blogs.

 

Either this is made up BS, or the Obama campaign's internal numbers run counter to what every other pollster is seeing. The comments on skewing the polls don't make much sense to me, because as far as I know the pollsters that do weight for party are basing this on actual registration numbers, not Obama press releases.

 

After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.

 

I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.

 

1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.

 

2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.

 

 

3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.

 

 

4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.

 

As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.

 

 

I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For those who remember 2000:

Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, wrote to top executives urging the networks not to call the election until all the polls close.

 

Dingell's full letter -- sent to NBC's Jeff Zucker, CBS's Les Moonves, Disney-ABC's Anne Sweeney, CNN's Jim Walton, Fox's Peter Chernin, Fox News' Roger Ailes, and MSNBC's Phil Griffin:

 

We are le

s

s

than a wee

k

away from a hi

s

toric Pre

s

idential election. It ha

s

been reported that more American

s

have regi

s

tered to vote for the fir

s

t time in thi

s

election than at any other time in recent hi

s

tory, with an expectation that voter turnout could reach an all-time high on November 4.

 

Mo

s

t American

s

will turn to televi

s

ion new

s

ca

s

t

s

for the mo

s

t up-to-date information regarding the election and re

s

ult

s

. Becau

s

e poll

s

in

s

ome part

s

of the country will clo

s

e a

s

early a

s

7 p.m. Ea

s

tern

S

tandard Time, while other

s

will not clo

s

e until a

s

late a

s

10 p.m., it i

s

vital that you ta

k

e care when projecting the potential outcome of the election.

S

pecifically, it i

s

critical that televi

s

ion coverage of the election re

s

ult

s

doe

s

not

s

erve to depre

s

s

voter turnout by calling the election for a particular Pre

s

idential candidate before all poll

s

have clo

s

ed nationwide.

 

We are all too familiar with the voter confu

s

ion cau

s

ed by the erroneou

s

early call

s

by variou

s

cable and televi

s

ion networ

k

s

of the 2000 Pre

s

idential election. And many, my

s

elf included, believe that when televi

s

ion

s

tation

s

call election

s

ba

s

ed on the re

s

ult

s

in a few Ea

s

tern

S

tate

s

, voter turnout el

s

ewhere in the Nation could potentially be lower than it would otherwi

s

e have been. Thi

s

potentially affect

s

not only the re

s

ult

s

of the Pre

s

idential election, but al

s

o could have a dramatic impact on other conte

s

t

s

for elected office.

 

I therefore urge you to refrain from calling the 2008 Pre

s

idential election until all poll

s

acro

s

s

the country are clo

s

ed.

S

uch a fair and judiciou

s

approach will allow the election

s

to play out a

s

they may, without any unintended influence by the media, and i

s

in the be

s

t intere

s

t

s

of the country.

 

S

incerely,

 

JOHN D. DINGELL

CHAIRMAN

 

What's interesting is that he's factually wrong as best as I can tell. According to CNN, polls in Alaska dont close until 1AM Eastern Time on Nov 5th. So technically, even if Obama gets a clear sweep of states like Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida... the networks wont be allowed to announce the winner until 1AM. There is a VERY possible scenario where Obama could have 270 electoral votes by about 10PM Eastern. That's BEFORE states like California, Oregon, and Washington close their polls and all those states are expected to go to Obama.

 

I COMPLETELY understand why they are trying to make the election as fair as possible, but if it's a landslide, how can they not call it? John King in front of his touchscreen TV on CNN: "Well, It's 10 PM eastern and as you can see by the electoral map, we project that Barack Obama has crossed the 270 electoral threshold to become president. But this election is still too close to call. We'll have a better idea at 1AM after Alaska closes"

[Heads22]

The latest "Obama staffer" email making the rounds on the conservative blogs.

 

Either this is made up BS, or the Obama campaign's internal numbers run counter to what every other pollster is seeing. The comments on skewing the polls don't make much sense to me, because as far as I know the pollsters that do weight for party are basing this on actual registration numbers, not Obama press releases.

 

I stopped when it referred to Iowa as a "true tossup".

 

He'll crush McCain here. I think a better question will be if he's closer to 55 or 60%.

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain Sinking in Arizona (not just for president):

 

Another poll shows that John McCain could be in serious danger of losing his home state of Arizona -- and remember, the Obama campaign just announced that they'll be advertising there for the first time in the general election.

 

The new numbers from Research 2000: McCain 48%, Obama 47%, with a ±4% margin of error. The key number from the internals is that Obama is winning the early vote by a 54%-42% margin, and this group is expected to make up 17% of the total likely voters.

 

Another important number, showing McCain's latent vulnerability: In a test run for his 2010 re-election against Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, McCain is trailing 53%-45%.

[kapkomet]

John McCain = Bob Dole.

 

[jasonxctf]

I stopped when it referred to Iowa as a "true tossup".

 

He'll crush McCain here. I think a better question will be if he's closer to 55 or 60%.

 

New Hampshire: 29 polls since May 1st. 19 showed Obama with a lead, 2 showed McCain. And the McCain ones were from 45 days ago. Average Obama lead in the state is 12 pts, hardly a tossup. (next to no chance???)

 

Iowa: 22 polls since May 1st. All 22 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 11 pts, hardly a tossup.

 

Virgina: 22 polls since October 1st. All 22 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 6.5 points.

 

Colorado: 30 polls since September 1st. 29 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 6.5 points.

 

Can one, or two or three polls be wrong? Sure... can 19, 22 or 29 all be wrong? Doubtful.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Iowa: 22 polls since May 1st. All 22 showed Obama with a lead. Average Obama lead in the state is 11 pts, hardly a tossup.

Well, in all fairness, both the Obama and McCain campaigns have said they think Iowa is closer than most polls show according to their own internal numbers.

 

However, I've been thinking... I would tend to say that campaigns would be rather conservative in their polling. They probably have various levels of poll data on any given state. One would be "best case scenario". Another would be "moderate expectations". and the other would be "past results based".

 

My theory is that Obama's "past results based" polls show a state like Iowa much closer. But even their "moderate expectations" have him fairly solid.

 

Just today the McCain camp said Iowa is "Dead even" according to their internal numbers.

[jasonxctf]

Well, in all fairness, both the Obama and McCain campaigns have said they think Iowa is closer than most polls show according to their own internal numbers.

 

However, I've been thinking... I would tend to say that campaigns would be rather conservative in their polling. They probably have various levels of poll data on any given state. One would be "best case scenario". Another would be "moderate expectations". and the other would be "past results based".

 

My theory is that Obama's "past results based" polls show a state like Iowa much closer. But even their "moderate expectations" have him fairly solid.

 

Just today the McCain camp said Iowa is "Dead even" according to their internal numbers.

 

 

A serious question... and I'm not picking on McCain here. How can someone's internal polls be so different than the external polls done, in many cases, by professionals?

 

SurveyUSA 10/28 - 10/29 658 LV 3.9 55 40 Obama +15

Marist 10/23 - 10/24 645 LV 4.0 52 42 Obama +10

Rasmussen 10/23 - 10/23 700 LV 4.0 52 44 Obama +8

NBC/Mason-Dixon 10/22 - 10/23 625 LV 4.0 51 40 Obama +11

Quad City-Times/R2000 10/19 - 10/22 600 LV 4.0 54 39 Obama +15

Big10 Battleground 10/19 - 10/22 586 LV 4.2 52 39 Obama +13

SurveyUSA 10/08 - 10/09 692 LV 3.8 54 41 Obama +13

Research 2000 09/29 - 09/30 600 LV 4.0 55 39 Obama +16

Rasmussen 09/25 - 09/25 700 LV 4.0 51 43 Obama +8

Marist 09/18 - 09/21 467 LV 4.0 51 41 Obama +10

Quad-City Times/R2000 09/15 - 09/17 600 LV 4.0 53 39 Obama +14

SurveyUSA 09/17 - 09/18 702 LV 3.8 54 43 Obama +11

Big10 Battleground 09/14 - 09/17 643 RV 4.0 45 45 Tie

Des Moines Register 09/08 - 09/10 616 LV 4.0 52 40 Obama +12

CNN/Time 08/31 - 09/02 828 RV -- 55 40 Obama +15

Univ. of Iowa 08/04 - 08/13 617 LV -- 50 43 Obama +7

 

[Texsox]

A serious question... and I'm not picking on McCain here. How can someone's internal polls be so different than the external polls done, in many cases, by professionals?

 

SurveyUSA 10/28 - 10/29 658 LV 3.9 55 40 Obama +15

Marist 10/23 - 10/24 645 LV 4.0 52 42 Obama +10

Rasmussen 10/23 - 10/23 700 LV 4.0 52 44 Obama +8

NBC/Mason-Dixon 10/22 - 10/23 625 LV 4.0 51 40 Obama +11

Quad City-Times/R2000 10/19 - 10/22 600 LV 4.0 54 39 Obama +15

Big10 Battleground 10/19 - 10/22 586 LV 4.2 52 39 Obama +13

SurveyUSA 10/08 - 10/09 692 LV 3.8 54 41 Obama +13

Research 2000 09/29 - 09/30 600 LV 4.0 55 39 Obama +16

Rasmussen 09/25 - 09/25 700 LV 4.0 51 43 Obama +8

Marist 09/18 - 09/21 467 LV 4.0 51 41 Obama +10

Quad-City Times/R2000 09/15 - 09/17 600 LV 4.0 53 39 Obama +14

SurveyUSA 09/17 - 09/18 702 LV 3.8 54 43 Obama +11

Big10 Battleground 09/14 - 09/17 643 RV 4.0 45 45 Tie

Des Moines Register 09/08 - 09/10 616 LV 4.0 52 40 Obama +12

CNN/Time 08/31 - 09/02 828 RV -- 55 40 Obama +15

Univ. of Iowa 08/04 - 08/13 617 LV -- 50 43 Obama +7

 

Couple areas.

 

Sampling differences

Phrasing of the questions

Identification issues "I'm calling from the Obama campaign and would like to ask you a couple questions . . ."

[jasonxctf]

Couple areas.

 

Sampling differences

Phrasing of the questions

Identification issues "I'm calling from the Obama campaign and would like to ask you a couple questions . . ."

 

so wouldnt the internal polls be more favorable to the candidate calling, and the externals less favorable?

[StrangeSox]

Couple areas.

 

Sampling differences

Phrasing of the questions

Identification issues "I'm calling from the Obama campaign and would like to ask you a couple questions . . ."

 

That makes sense when talking about one poll or even a small handful of polls, but we're talking about numerous polls put out by multiple independent (none from the Obama campaign in that list) sources. They'll each have their own slightly varying samples and phrasing, but when they all tend to agree with one candidate having a lead of +10 or so, you can be reasonably sure that that is a good representation of how the population actually feels.

 

If McCain's internal polls put Iowa at a close race, they're either outliers or they know something about sampling Iowa that every other pollster missed.

[BigSqwert]

Not sure if this was already posted...

 

[Texsox]

so wouldnt the internal polls be more favorable to the candidate calling, and the externals less favorable?

Yes, probably.

 

Polls are all about managing the error and making sense of what was polled and the results. That's in a perfect world. Candidates report poll results not as an unbiased report, they report poll results to influence the other polls, especially the one coming up Tuesday.

 

Now I'm not saying candidates lie, but you could structure a poll to generate the results you want. You could inject bias in your sampling. Take for example a poll of voter preferences in Cook County. If you want to make a GOP candidate look good, would you poll in Bridgeport or Rolling Meadows? I'm guessing a GOP candidate would poll better in Rolling Meadows. If you are looking for a scientifically unbiased answer, the voter in Rolling Meadows and the voter in Bridgeport would have an equal chance of being polled.

[bmags]

The latest "Obama staffer" email making the rounds on the conservative blogs.

 

Either this is made up BS, or the Obama campaign's internal numbers run counter to what every other pollster is seeing. The comments on skewing the polls don't make much sense to me, because as far as I know the pollsters that do weight for party are basing this on actual registration numbers, not Obama press releases.

 

haha, This is clearly BS