It will be Hillary in 08 - Page 2

Originally Posted by Fellowship

I was listening to Sean Hannity today to see the vibe of the average caller in light of the situation now that McCain is the front runner.

This women called in and broke down crying that McCain was the likely nominee. Sean in his true to form "asshole" way said "ohhh don't pull a Hillary" and I think he realized he was insensitive so Sean Hannity gave the woman all these "free gifts" like a year of free gas and some other things....

I think he realized he was extremely rude to the caller in light of his comment so he "bought her off with gifts" to glaze over his obvious mistake.

a few calls later a guy calls in and tells Sean how smart he is to understand the concerns of that women because he gave her all those goodies...

MY GOODNESS THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN A LOAD OF TROUBLE.....

Sean Hannity does not know how to act which is normal but now all his little sheeple are calling in crying.

McLame has his work cut out for him.

Fellows

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman



NOT a Photoshop.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're sounding like sammi jo. Hillary cannot beat McCain without a viable third party alternative who will siphon off conservative or moderate votes. He'll crush her.

Originally Posted by shetline

For the above reasons, I think it's safe to say that recent polls showing Obama doing better vs. McCain than Clinton will do are nearly meaningless, not much more valid than those early polling results for Fred Thompson were compared to real election results.

Originally Posted by vinea

I think that Obama has a fundraising advantage over Hillary. Most of his money has been small donors and retappable. Kinda like Ron Paul but an order of magnitude larger.

$32M from 170,000 donors in January. If Obama gets the nod then the big players will open checkbooks as well.

He's young. He's new. Clinton is old. McCain is older. There's even the whisper of a chance that the young vote might finally turn out in decisive numbers. I sure hope they do because they're the ones getting the real shaft from the system.

Originally Posted by shetline

• James Dobson just endorsed Huckabee, at a time when it's clear Huckabee has little chance of winning. I take this as a sign that a completely NON-viable Christian Right candidate (probably not Huckabee himself) coming forward, to siphon Republican votes, is a very distinct and real possibility. Strong emotions are at play here, not the clear, cool reasoning of trying to work for the most favorable (as seen by a Republican) outcome among poor choices.

Originally Posted by shetline

• Even though he's been around for some time now, McCain isn't nationally known anywhere near as well as Clinton. Neither is Obama, for that matter. Both McCain and Obama currently enjoy the benefit many less-known figures enjoy, that voters don't know their faults yet, and voters often project their hopes and desires onto lesser-known candidates. If you doubt this, just look at the early polling favoring Fred Thompson, who turned into a complete wash-out.

Originally Posted by shetline

Obama probably has a slightly better chance against McCain than Clinton, but I'm feeling fairly confident that his advantage won't be that large in real-world voting, and that it doesn't matter much anyway because either Democrat will (in my opinion) easily beat McCain in the fall.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

I can't vote for this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjNUtRYkqxE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoP...eature=related

oh and this gem:
47 seconds

Fellows

Originally Posted by shetline

Obama probably has a slightly better chance against McCain than Clinton, but I'm feeling fairly confident that his advantage won't be that large in real-world voting, and that it doesn't matter much anyway because either Democrat will (in my opinion) easily beat McCain in the fall. Consider:

• If Obama gets the nomination, right wing media WILL demonize him until his negatives are in the same neighborhood as Clinton's are now. Clinton has been been "pre-demonized" and is probably maxed out in that department.
  
  So? The right will still do anything to stop her.
  
  
• McCain hasn't won big anywhere yet -- he's only gone slightly above 50% in a few blue states. That will change now that it's down to McCain and Huckabee, but it's only because Republicans mostly use winner-takes-all delegate apportionment, where a mere plurality is enough to win all, that the Republican primary season has essentially come to an end already. If not, they'd still be fighting it out because McCain is a bad fit for a large portion of the Republican base. Republicans don't have a clear candidate due to mandate or collective compromise, they have a clear candidate due to funny arithmetic.
  
  But they do have one. Consider that.
  
• Despite the frenzied in-fighting you might find in some online political forums, real-world Democrats will find it much easier to collectively line up behind either Clinton or Obama. These two aren't really very different on matters of policy, whereas the Republican candidates have had some pretty substantial policy differences.
  
  They won't line up behind Hillary when McCain is running. He will take the center. Without the center, Hillary is screwed.
  
• James Dobson just endorsed Huckabee, at a time when it's clear Huckabee has little chance of winning. I take this as a sign that a completely NON-viable Christian Right candidate (probably not Huckabee himself) coming forward, to siphon Republican votes, is a very distinct and real possibility. Strong emotions are at play here, not the clear, cool reasoning of trying to work for the most favorable (as seen by a Republican) outcome among poor choices.
  
  That's pure speculation, and I don't think it will happen.
  
  
• Voter turn-out (almost 2:1 in favor of Democrats and Independents voting for Democrats) and fund raising shows Republicans are fractured, dispirited, and not very energized by their available choices. The ability of Republicans to get in line behind their candidate, based on past performance, is far from a guarantee this election. Many will stay home -- and I doubt that even Hillary Hatred will rouse enough Republican voters out of their despondency.
  
  
  Sure it will. You have no idea how much we hate Hillary. Obama might be different.
  
  
• Some Republicans hate McCain as much or more than Clinton. The hatred in these cases is so strong because, unlike Clinton, McCain is "one of their own", therefore his differences from Right Wing orthodoxy feel like betrayal to many Republicans. For Republicans who see their situation as only being given a choice between an Evil Democrat and Republican Traitor, they'll likely insert a third choice (write-in or non-viable third party candidate) or stay home.
  
  A write-in? Get real. And no, I don't you can say even "some" Republicans hate McCain as much as Clinton. You might be able to say "a tiny insignificant number." That's about it.
  
  
  
• Even though he's been around for some time now, McCain isn't nationally known anywhere near as well as Clinton. Neither is Obama, for that matter. Both McCain and Obama currently enjoy the benefit many less-known figures enjoy, that voters don't know their faults yet, and voters often project their hopes and desires onto lesser-known candidates. If you doubt this, just look at the early polling favoring Fred Thompson, who turned into a complete wash-out.

I don't see how that;s relevant. He and Clinton are both well known anyway.


For the above reasons, I think it's safe to say that recent polls showing Obama doing better vs. McCain than Clinton will do are nearly meaningless, not much more valid than those early polling results for Fred Thompson were compared to real election results. Obama's advantage over McCain is quite likely to shrink, McCain's advantage vs. either is very likely to shrink, and Republican fund-raising and voter turnout will further reduce any real voting-booth advantage McCain sees from looking at political polling, where turnout is a difficult-to-calculate factor in weighting of polling data, often based on prior elections -- likely a poor predictor for Republican turnout in this election.

they're not meaningless, but they will change. Obama is a tougher candidate for McCain to go up against. That's practically a universally accepted fact.

Originally Posted by SDW2001


So? The right will still do anything to stop her.

Like kill her? How about Obama? I wouldn't put it past one of your wingnut ilk to assassinate the man, seriously!

But they do have one. Consider that.

One that hate radio is lining up behind, one that FIX News labels as "D-AZ?" The Democrats will just steal the conservatism play books attacking Mayor McCheese (nee McCane), and say "Thank you very much."

Oh, and consider McFlipper's (nee McCane's) 25 year record in Congress, there's enough dirt on him to keep the Democrats very busy through 2012.

They won't line up behind Hillary when McCane is running. He will take the center. Without the center, Hillary is screwed.

That's pure speculation, and I know it will not happen.

Sure it will. You have no idea how much we hate Hillary. Obama might be different.

ROTFLMAO! Ha, Ha, Ha, right, you all have a continent full (nee closet full) of institutionalized bigots, I have no doubt that it will be the same for Obama, as it would be for Clinton, you all will just substitute race for gender.

And no, I don't you can say even "some" Republicans hate McCane as much as Clinton. You might be able to say "a tiny insignificant number." That's about it.

That's pure speculation, how do you know that?

I don't see how that's relevant. He and Clinton are both well known anyway.

Yes, both Obama and Clinton are well known nationally, while McCane is clearly a lesser known political figure nationally. You now have made one accurate statement, way to go.

Obama is a tougher candidate for McCane to go up against. That's practically a universally accepted fact.

That's your 3rd highly speculative statement, clearly a lot of the polling efforts to date have been grossly in error, a swing of 23 precentage points in California from Obama to Clinton, from the Wrongby Poll!

So as I see it, that's three speculative statements = three strikes = YOU"RE OUT!

Originally Posted by franksargent

[CENTER][/CENTER]

swing of 23 precentage points in California from Obama to Clinton

Originally Posted by archurban

if Mccain would be president, this country won't be changed at all. it will be just like what Bush has done.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

You know, you're right.

With Obama or Clinton as President, we'll have a Democratic-controlled Congress and Presidency for the first time in nearly 15 years. That's a long time to go without the ability to enact change with liberal priorities.

Originally Posted by icfireball

]See a trend? Barack Obama always wins against McCain, and wins outside the margin of error.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

What makes you expect a Clinton or Obama White House to suddenly, against all run of play, be on the peoples' side?

Originally Posted by icfireball

First, when I saw SDW's red responses, I actually thought that it was rather clever. The drawback of course is that it's hard to quote. But your post just proves you are a forum formatting whore.

Thank You Very Much!

On to real substance, you referenced a so called . This is absolutely erroneous. The Zogby poll was correct. Barack Obama WAS ahead in California by about 13 points on election day. But in California, "early voting" is allowed, and well over a million votes had been bagged before Feb 5... most of those breaking for Hillary because she is the establishment candidate. That's why she did so well in states like Florida and Michigan where no one campaigned. To corroborate my point, let me direct your attention to a SurveyUSA that was released the same day as the Zogby poll that showed Clinton ahead by 10 percentage points. Why this discrepancy? SurveyUSA decided to include people who had already voted before Feb 5 in the poll results.

Now onto the general election match-up polls. Yadda, yadda, yadda, ...

At this point in time all this means is GIGO.

Let's see what the polls say after both parties have nominated their candidates.

Originally Posted by franksargent

As to your Zogby comment, after doing my own first hand statistical analyses, I can truthfully say;

You're full of (sh)it!

So to prove the above statement, I'll first post a few links;

CA SoS Democratic Primary Results

So basically, HRC received 51.92% of the total votes cast, and Obama received 42.40% of the total votes cast, or overall both HRC and BO received 94.32% of the total votes cast, a difference of 9.52% in HRC favor.

So now let's go to the Zogby Poll;

California - 2008 Presidential Polls

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: McCain Dominates GOP Races; Dems Locked in Tight Contests As Super Tuesday Polls Open

See page 6 of the Zogby PDF file for their California Democratic Primary prediction of February 3-4, 2008.

BO is polled at 49% and HRC is polled at 36%, so immediately a red light starts to flash (in my mind anyway), as these two percentages add up to only 85% versus the 94.32% from actual vote totals, or Zogby underestimated HRC + BO by 9.32%, this under prediction is one of three critical steps to understanding the Zogby polling errors. Note that the sample size was n = 895, and MOE was ± 3.3% (a standard textbook calculation (although the actual number is 3.24%)) with the underlying assumption that the sample taken is truly random (which it clearly was not, but more on that later) which represents the 95% confidence interval, or to put it another way there is a 95% chance that the Zogby estimates correctly reflect the actual voting population within their stated MOE bounds.

The final link is the CNN exit poll data;

EXIT POLLS: California

Just looking at the male/female BO/HRC table at the top of that page (i. e. taking a weighted average of the exit polling data), BO received an exit poll estimate of 41.52% of the total vote and HRC received 52.56% of the total vote, or HRC + BO = 94.08% versus the aforementioned 94.32% from the actual votes. The sample size, n = 1908, MOE = 2.23%.

So the second critical step is to realize that on February 5th, 2008 the exit poll data agrees quite closely to the actual total votes cast (early ballots and primary day ballots combined). Thus, if correct, the exit polls suggest a voting pattern that changed very little between primary day ballots and early ballots cast.

I could rest my case there, but I'll take it one step further (the third critical step), I used the above links, the aforementioned Zogby polling percentages and the actual voting population data, and simulated an early voting population (x) versus the actual voting population (X). I used increments of 100,000 (from 0 up to the total voting population) and entered the data into an Excel spreadsheet. I suggest you repeat this exercise for yourself to see how absurd the Zogby polling numbers really are.

Anyway using the original Zogby polling percentages (BO = 49% and HRC = 36%), to match the Zogby numbers requires an early voting population of 2,646,440 votes cast, at which point HRC receives 61.63% of the early votes and BO receives 38.37% of the early votes, or a difference of 23.25% (Note: I used the Solver function in Excel to give me the closest rounded integer solution).

Now you say that 1M+ early voters were cast, yet in fact early ballots must = 2,646,440 (or greater) in order to get a valid (positive) solution using the Zogby percentiles.

And trust me, I tried all types of alternatives (deviations from the Zogby percentages), and any valid solution that gets me close to 1M+ pre-primary day voters gives me numbers that fall well outside the Zogby MOE.

Therefore, I've concluded that the Zogby polling data for the California Democratic Primary was full of (sh)it, since the Zogby numbers fail 3 critical statistical criteria. For the Zogby numbers to be randomly representative of the actual voting population, would require a larger sample size that has statistical significance in all demographics, clearly there are dozens, if not hundreds of demographic groupings, thus each demographic group within the Zogby poll must actually offering a fair (and random) metric of each percentile of each demographic that actually voted.

So, if you don't mind, please provide some factual links supporting your position mathematically and statistically, TYVM.

Originally Posted by shetline

It doesn't matter how many polls you site, or how accurate they are. It's the thing being measured which is itself ephemeral. 100 well-documented reports, which all mutually concur, of the size and shape of a cloud seen in the sky at 2:00PM tell you very little about what the sky will look like at 5:00PM.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Liberal Priorities?? The only evidence that we have, from the last 2 pathetic years of a Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, is that they gone along with the Bush White House to almost the same extent as the previous Republican controlled Senate and Congress. The extremist HR1955 was introduced by "Democratic" congresswoman, Rep. Jane Harman... a paranoid piece of Big Brotherism straight out of the police state handbook. The current "opposition" (ha!) (!!!) has sided with BushCorp every step of the way since 2006, a not so subtle way of telling the American people: "Go fvck yourselves. Your vote doesn't count for anything now, but we maintain the election charade every 2 years just to keep everyone superficially satisfied, and the world under the impression that we still have a representative democracy".

What makes you expect a Clinton or Obama White House to suddenly, against all run of play, be on the peoples' side?

Repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.....

Change.. my A$$.

Originally Posted by icfireball

You don't know how CNN conducted their "exit polling." if they were to conduct their "exit polling" accurately, they would have to include responses from people who participated in the "early voting." My guess is that this is what they indeed did, although I can't verify that.

Let me also point to the fact that John Edwards got approx. 5% of the vote. Barely anybody votes for a candidate that has dropped out as seen in the other states without early voting. Assume John Edwards would have gotten 1% without early voting. This means that an additional 4% of the vote would have gone to someone else. But what's more important is that the level of support for John Edwards is indicative of the volume of early voting: huge. So that may not have been the entire problem with Zogby, I will admit. But it was definitely a major consideration.

I'm not going to go all anal retentive and attempt to explain my argument with fallacies as you often do. Instead, let me just demonstrate the overall accuracy of Zogby:

So far in the 2008 primaries, Zogby has correctly predicted 13 of 17 races. In 2006, Zogby phone polling correctly called all 10 competitive United States Senate races and nailed the exact margin in the three closest races. His interactive online polling correctly called the winner of 17 of 18 races.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

I don't think they are.

I think they reveal some serious issues with the prospect of a President John McCain.

Fellows

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, they reveal that their creators hate John McCain. That's all.

Originally Posted by franksargent

A dead person would have had just as good a record (probably better) as Zogby's 2008 guesstimates.

Oh, and what's with the ad hominem, "with fallacies as you often do" anyway, it appears to be an ad hominem aimed at yourself, since you clearly don't have the fortitude, knowledge, education, or quite frankly, the intelligence to directly address my statistical presentation and/or arguments.

Your first point is clearly irrelevant, it doesn't matter how they conducted the exit polling on February 5th, all we need to know is that an actual exit poll on that date happened, and that it, in fact, accurately reflects the actual voting pattern in total, and well within the exit poll MOE. In fact, all the major news organizations use the exact same exit polling data, do I have to dig that link up for you also?

Either provide some factual links to support your original claim with respect to the California Democratic Primary and the Zogby miscue, or basically, STFudgeU!

Some of you may have noticed our pre-election polling differed from the actual results. It appears that we underestimated Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters. We also overestimated turnout among African-American voters. Those of you who have been following our work know that we have gotten 13 out of 17 races right this year, and so many others over the years. This does happen.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Liberal Priorities?? The only evidence that we have, from the last 2 pathetic years of a Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, is that they gone along with the Bush White House to almost the same extent as the previous Republican controlled Senate and Congress. The extremist HR1955 was introduced by "Democratic" congresswoman, Rep. Jane Harman... a paranoid piece of Big Brotherism straight out of the police state handbook. The current "opposition" (ha!) (!!!) has sided with BushCorp every step of the way since 2006, a not so subtle way of telling the American people: "Go fvck yourselves. Your vote doesn't count for anything now, but we maintain the election charade every 2 years just to keep everyone superficially satisfied, and the world under the impression that we still have a representative democracy".

What makes you expect a Clinton or Obama White House to suddenly, against all run of play, be on the peoples' side?

Repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.....

Change.. my A$$.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Quite simply anything will be an improvemnt over what we've had for 8 years.

And now that the economy is at the forefront ( again ) people will be voting with their pocket books. Right now before anything else the economy needs to start the healing process. Because it'll take a long time to fix the damage.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Originally Posted by icfireball

You are blinded by your arrogance. You try to intimidate people with inundation but it really doesn't further your cause. You are scrapping over details when my point remains very clear: Obama is much stronger against McCain than Hillary.

You dragged the issue of accuracy of polling into it to prove your argument, but you didn't prove that polling was inaccurate; you simply gave one example of polling being "inaccurate." You're fallacy was saying that if the polls in california are wrong, then the polls everywhere are wrong. Which is absurdly incorrect and a fallacy. As I've already stated, SurveyUSA pinpointed the california results and the margin correctly within 1%. SurveyUSA included data from early voters, Zogby didn't. John Zogby accredits the error to:



But again, it isn't just one poll that show Obama having a lead over McCain. It's many polls. I referenced three (Time, Rasmussen, and CNN), but virtually all polls released within the past 3 months show Obama performing better against McCain than Clinton. But even if you ignore all of the polls and numbers it's straight up common sense.

ARE YOU DENYING THAT OBAMA WOULD PERFORM BETTER IN A GENERAL ELECTION VERSUS MCCAIN THAN HILLARY WOULD?

In 2004, however, his predictions failed to materialize. Before polls had even closed in the 2004 presidential election, Zogby predicted a comfortable win for John Kerry (311 electoral votes, versus 213 for Bush, with 14 too close to call), saying that "Bush had this election lost a long time ago," adding that voters wanted a change and would vote for "any candidate who was not Bush." While admitting that he was mistaken, Zogby did not admit any possible flaws in his poll methods, insisting that his predictions were all "within the margin of error." While on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, he said he felt that Kerry would win due to the undecided voters. Despite his personal prediction, Zogby's final poll showed Bush with a one point lead over Kerry, making him one of the 'winners' among pollsters according to the New York Post and Boston Globe.[1] Zogby later released a "mea culpa" in which he stated "I will do better next time: I will just poll, not predict."

Prior to the January, 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Zogby, like virtually all other pollsters, predicted a large (13 points, in Zogby's case) victory for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, adding, "Obama is still on a roll and not slowing down. He had another big day." Clinton went on to win by three percentage points. Zogby's predictions in the Iowa Caucus, and the South Carolina, and Florida primaries, however, were far closer, and he was one of only a few pollsters to correctly call Obama's Iowa win. However, his final poll in California showed Obama winning by 13%, but the actual results showed Hillary winning by 10%, which is beyond the margin of error.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." [attributed to Albert Einstein]

Originally Posted by franksargent

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." [attributed to Albert Einstein]

Originally Posted by icfireball

I guess, I'm alright then seeing as I'm not yet 18.

All I was saying was Barack is a stronger candidate than Hillary against republican candidates, especially McCain. The poll results I referenced were congruous with my assertion. I didn't just reference one poll. I referenced three polls. I could have referenced any number of polls that indicate the same thing. My assertion was not a particularly bold or daring statement. It is a statement that is general accepted as fact.

Originally Posted by icfireball

Very bad analogy. And I'd also like to point out that Barack wins against McCain in almost any poll for the past few months. Like I've already said, apart from polls, numbers, and statistics, Obama has a lot more independent and cross party appeal than Hillary. That is a fact. Hillary is very polarizing and most republicans extremely dislike her. That is a fact. McCain has very strong support amongst independents. That is a fact. I'm sorry but you just can't reasonably dispute that Obama has a better chance of winning versus McCain than Hillary.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's nuts.



And you think that gives Obama or Hillary and advantage over McCain?

Originally Posted by tonton

Sammi Jo, we all know your stance with regard to the establishment.

but as Shawn has pointed out to you time and time again, the Democrats have a chance, this time, of producing real change in a few areas, such as health care and individual rights.

Yes, they may end us keeping us in the terrible war. Yes, they may continue to pander to big business. But in this case, we pretty much have to keep telling them that that's not good enough, while we accept them as the lesser of the two evils. We have no alternative at this point.

We cannot expect Kucinich to get the nomination, much less the presidency.

And if you support Ron Paul, you are no Liberal.