posted
I think it's going to be much closer than anyone expects (or wants). I think Clinton's media blitz of the last week (SNL, The Daily Show, staying in the news all week, the "red phone" ads) will bring her up in the numbers just on name familiarity.
I also think that unless Obama wins so solidly that the party pressures her to quit, she will not stop trying until the convention and maybe not then. She will fight for the Florida and Michigan delegates, she will sue for the Texas delegate rules, she will wheedle every superdelegate. I do not believe she is capable of stepping aside for the greater good. I'd be pleased to be wrong, though.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually doing something of an average of polls adfectio. There've been polls from her being up 14 to up only a little bit, or even her being down a single point. I sort of averaged them together to get that five point lead, so I think it's closer to being right. But I suppose you can listen to whatever poll you wish.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, pollster.com does a good job of averaging/curve-fitting polls as they are released. Their current average for Ohio is: Clinton 49.4 Obama 43.6 We'll know in 24-48 hours if that average holds. http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
They also have meta-polls for the other upcoming states and the overall national numbers.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does the acceleration of gravity count as momentum?
lol. Lovely.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: make sure that they don't steal our water thats an improvement.
I'm sorry, your water? Pretty sure it's ours too. I've said before that I agree wholeheartedly that the Great Lakes need to be managed responsibly, which is why there are dozens of laws in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other GLS to make sure that water is not taken out of watershed areas and makes it back into the lakes, especially with reduced rainfall in the last couple years. It's a shared resource, but we I think are in agreement that there's an argument with the federal US government over how it is managed, and we're just as worried as you are, if not more, about southern states trying to take the water.
We'd love it, by the way, if you'd stop sending us all your trash.
Water doesn't just come from lakes, there are other fresh water sources north of the border.
IP: Logged |
posted
I just got home from an Obama rally. Wow- who knew they were actually democrats in Texas? Lots of fun, very positive, people were friendly and hyper. And seeing him in person, I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of Democrats in Texas actually. They've felt shut out of the process though lately for a lot of reasons. This could be the start of a total remake of the Texas political landscape. Texas Democrats have for a long time felt a bit like Californian Republicans, like their vote doesn't matter. I just read an article the other day on the changing face of the party there. Clinton earned her political spurs so to speak in Texas decades ago, and the situation and electorate there has totally undergone a revolution since. It's why the support she was expecting is only coming in bits and pieces.
Texas might be a battleground state this year in the General, but I'm not sure they've come THAT far yet. What I would look for in Texas is a change in the makeup of their Congressional delegation. I think there will be a lot more Texas Democrats in Washington come January.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sen. Hillary Clinton's Democratic presidential campaign dumped the traveling press corps exactly where many voters believe they belong today -- in the men's room of the Burger Activity Center.
posted
Oh, I've been a major pollster.com junkie since the start of this thing. USA election polls is a little different, but is better for having the number of delegates on each state view.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: You have to understand that when Obama and Clinton speak against NAFTA, they are speaking against sending jobs to Mexico. ...
Perhaps this is changing with some "blame Canada" rhetoric from Clinton:
quote: She said she knew the real pitfalls of NAFTA because she represents a state bordering Canada and she said farmers from New York are not being treated fairly under the agreement. "You get up to that border and they've got a million excuses why you can't move your apples or your dairy products across the border,'' she said.
"But those trucks come zooming down from Canada.
"What's wrong this picture?
... and some accusations that our Conservative government may have leaked the memo to help the Republicans (a definite possibility, although without proof yet) ...
quote: In Ottawa, Harper denied accusations from Layton that he was trying to influence the U.S. political process, but the NDP leader called on the Prime Minister to fire his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, alleged to have leaked the original information to CTV. "I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election,'' Harper said. ...
posted
Yes, well I'm almost certain someone had something to gain by leaking the memo. My analysis of yesterday was based on a map and you can definitely see where Clinton has bands of influence. She took the high south (if that makes any sense) extending east and west from Arkansas, and as I said yesterday, the Rust belt-- or it may be states that are connected with New York.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I just got home from an Obama rally. Wow- who knew they were actually democrats in Texas? Lots of fun, very positive, people were friendly and hyper. And seeing him in person, I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
My mom bought into that stuff too.
Her exact quote: I don't want there to be prayer mats in the White House.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twas a Conservative(Party-led)Government that foisted NAFTA upon Canada. And the Conservative Government of Canada has stated that the Clinton campaign's account of the meeting is wrong and misleading.
"...when Obama and Clinton speak against NAFTA, they are speaking against sending jobs to Mexico."
Not in that direct*sense, though that is what the FestungAmerika wing of the RepublicanParty -- eg RushLimbaugh, PatBuchanon, etc -- was heavily pushing in their media campaign to defeat the Democrats in the '94, '96, and '98 CongressionalElections. BillClinton probably would have been taken down in '96, except candidate PatBuchanon was beating up on candidate BobDole for his support of NAFTA during the Republican primary elections. And when Dole was selected as the Republican presidential nominee, Buchanon ran an independent presidential campaign which ended up drawing most of its votes from those who would have otherwise voted for Dole in the GeneralElection. The harshness of Buchanon's campaign against Dole in the Primaries and in the GeneralElection also probably caused a lower voter turnout in the GeneralElection amongst disaffected Democrats, independents, and swing-vote Republicans who would have voted Republican to punish Clinton. While the Republicans gained some Senate seats (only the Senate votes upon treaty approval/disapproval), I think that the Republicans also lost a small number of seats in the House of Representatives. In '94, without the Buchanon factor, the Republicans made huge gains in both Houses. And again gained seats in both Houses in '98, though much smaller than in '94.
* Though that may be the soundbite. Amongst the well-informed job-export in-and-of-itself was a lesser issue. One of the major problems was that NAFTA set an unfair playing field heavily tilted against American labor due to much weaker environmental laws, worker health&safety regulations, and labor-contract&job-security protections on the other sides of the borders. On a level playing field, many American manufacturers would not have been able to afford the abandonment of their already-trained workers and their already-built factories&infrastructures in order to train new employees and build new factories&infrastructures across the borders.
posted
Folks don't feel right about dissing his race, but they are happy to believe this made up crap. It's why Clinton does better with less-educated people.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I just got home from an Obama rally. Wow- who knew they were actually democrats in Texas? Lots of fun, very positive, people were friendly and hyper. And seeing him in person, I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
My mom bought into that stuff too.
Her exact quote: I don't want there to be prayer mats in the White House.
I really don't get how people can be so willfully uninformed. Maybe it isn't willfull on your mom's part, scholar, but even the tiniest bit of investigation would show her that her assumptions are incorrect. How does she react when you point out to her that they are?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were a Muslim, I would be a little bit annoyed at the implication that if Obama were a Muslim, that alone would be a reason for him not to be a President.
As an atheist, who would probably even have lower odds than a Muslim, I could only wish to have the same odds as a Muslim Obama Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Folks don't feel right about dissing his race, but they are happy to believe this made up crap. It's why Clinton does better with less-educated people.
Lisa takes the whole "next Hitler" angle with regard to him, doesn't she? And she's pretty well educated. If I recall correctly she chalks it up to a gut feeling.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If I were a Muslim, I would be a little bit annoyed at the implication that if Obama were a Muslim, that alone would be a reason for him not to be a President.
I'm not a Muslim, and it bothers me quite a bit. The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true (and to make them stop listening, really). For that reason I view it as an issue to be addressed outside of the context of Obama.
quote:As an atheist, who would probably even have lower odds than a Muslim, I could only wish to have the same odds as a Muslim Obama
You know, I wonder--with all other things being equal between the two candidates, would a Muslim or an atheist fare worse in a general election?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never used the term "next Hitler". I do think he's extremely dangerous. And I've thought so for years. Long before this stupid "Hussein" nonsense came up. No, he's not Muslim. I think I'd rather he was.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that you hadn't used that exact terminology, but was that not the gist of your comments about him (not trying to miscast your thoughts--honest question)?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom thinks that Obama will expand welfare and so poor people will get lazier. She is strongly opposed to any form of government welfare. Which is funny because I was on Medicaid while pregnant and my daughter is currently on CHIP and WIC. She hates the EIC (though it is ok that I get it, just not most people). She believes these programs are what is destroying America. What's worse, is Obama seems like he might be capable of getting something done.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: If I were a Muslim, I would be a little bit annoyed at the implication that if Obama were a Muslim, that alone would be a reason for him not to be a President.
I'm not a Muslim, and it bothers me quite a bit. The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true (and to make them stop listening, really). For that reason I view it as an issue to be addressed outside of the context of Obama.
Agreed on all points.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my mother bought in to the Muslim stuff because she watches a lot of FOX News and their "all islamofacists, all the time" coverage.
And she, being a product of her generation, is probably still a bit racist, though embarrassed, and so it comes out this way.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom sent the obama is a muslim, snopes says so e-mail to me and my sister. We both replied with the snopes said the opposite- here's the link. Though my sister was more aggresive then me- she went through and e-mailed every e-mail address that was listed in the forwarded to and by.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lastest polls for Ohio's Democratic race:
ARG Mar. 3 Clinton: 56% Obama: 42% Zogby Mar. 2 Clinton: 45% Obama: 47% U. of Cincinnati Mar. 2 Clinton: 51% Obama: 42% SurveyUSA Mar. 2 Clinton: 54% Obama: 44% Suffolk U. Mar. 2 52% 40% Rasmussen Mar. 2 50% 44%
Only the Zogby poll has Obama up, and only by two points. Five other polls have Clinton ahead. ARG has her ahead by 14 points, SuffolkU by 12 points, and SurveyUSA by 10 points. Of course, such wide variation in the polls makes you wonder how reliable any of them are. But perhaps it is meaningful that five of six polls have Clinton ahead by at least six points, and three of them have her ahead by double-digits.
In Texas, the ARG poll (the most recent poll, taken March 3) has Clinton ahead by 3 points, 50% to 47%. Two other polls taken March 2 have Obama up by only 1 point. Only Zogby and Insider Advantage have Obama up by more than a point, but each is still within the margin of error.
One interesting thing is that the Rassmussen polls taken about a week apart show Clinton gaining a little. For Feb. 27, Rassmussen reported: Clinton 44%, Obama 48%. For March 2, Rassmussen reported: Clinton 47%, Obama 48%.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: ... The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true
True if this was outside Hatrack. I was more expressing my opinion here, specifically the portion of Hatrack which has managed to slog through 39 pages of primary posts and thus I would assume already know Obama isn't a Muslim
quote: You know, I wonder--with all other things being equal between the two candidates, would a Muslim or an atheist fare worse in a general election?
This was was what I was kind of referencing, this is before 9/11 so things may have changed for the better:
quote: A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years: Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%) Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%) Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%) Baptist: 6% Woman: 8% Mormon: 17% Muslim: 38% Gay: 37% (1978: 74%) Atheist: 48% ... Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists. Attitudes towards "Muslim Americans" were even better than this. ... There is a large drop for each group, but the drop for atheists is smallest and the final number of people who remain prejudiced against atheists is significantly higher than for every other group — so much higher, in fact, that non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups. Born-again Christians are more prejudiced in absolute terms, but they are generally more prejudiced against everyone.
posted
I wonder if there's any relationship between the % of distrust and the inherency in one's belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong. (That is, Mormons believe other people are tragically wrong, and atheists even moreso.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although I think it could be explained by a simpler "similarity" measure. That is the average voter feels that they are relatively more similar to a Catholic, a Black person, a Jew, and so forth down the list. The average voter must feel that they have relatively little in common with a Mormon, a Muslim, a gay person, or an atheist respectively.
The reason why I think this is simpler is because I don't think the average voter goes out and actually does the research to find out what a Mormon thinks about them or what an atheist thinks about them. Even on Hatrack, I only recently found out about the (details of, rather) whole "great apostasy" thing from the other thread and how Mormons view other Christians.
The "tragically wrong" aspect also could not explain the low position of the gay person since the average gay person probably does not in fact think that other people (i.e. straight people) have it tragically wrong (and should be gay instead of straight). However, the average voter probably does feel quite dissimilar from a gay person.
Actually, I shudder to think where an Asian atheist would have placed in the previous study. Oy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I wonder if there's any relationship between the % of distrust and the inherency in one's belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong.
Is the belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong any more inherent to Mormonism or atheism than it is to other Christian sects or other monotheistic religions?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I wonder if there's any relationship between the % of distrust and the inherency in one's belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong.
Perhaps, but if that were a significant component I suspect that Catholics and Jews would be a lot higher on the list. I suspect that the those who say they would never vote for "a Muslim" or "a Mormon" or "a Gay" or "an Atheist" do so for two predominant factors.
1. A deep seated belief that the core values associated with that "group" are inherently inconsistent with one's own core values. Such beliefs are largely the result of unfair stereotypes.
I bet most of the people who say they would never vote for an atheist have atheist acquaintances who they know and respect but who they have no idea are atheists. Most atheists I know rarely make a big deal out of it.
2. A fear that those groups have an agenda (secret or otherwise) that threatens one's lifestyle.
In the case of Muslims the stereotypes that cause that fear should be obvious. How many times have you heard the claims that Islam is "incompatible with democracy", "breeds terrorist extremists", or "teaches women have no souls". How many times have you heard that "Muslims hate our freedoms"? How many times have you hears Islam and Fascist mentioned in the same sentence?
In the case of Mormons that fear is caused by differences from the mainstream Christianity that can seem very strange combined with the church's penchant for secrecy and a centrally organized authoritarian structure. That combination plays into the whole dangerous conspiracy mindset.
As for Gays we don't even have to speculate. Numerous religious leaders have said right out that Gays are attacking marriage and families.
Atheists are a bit harder for me to explain since I've never really known anyone with a strong prejudice against atheists. I suspect that's a byproduct of my academic social circle. I know lots of people who are non-religious many of him if pressed will admit they are atheists or agnostics. The majority of them have a very live and let live attitude about religion and many who I know are quite respectful (sometime even envious of) other peoples faith even though they do not share it.
I am willing to speculate that prejudice against atheists is the result of a variety of factors. First, there is the small minority of strident activist atheists who never skip an opportunity to slam religion and the religious. Even though I'm convinced this group is a minority, they are often the only atheist people are likely to know about. Add to that the misconception that Atheists (rather than minority religions) have been the primary drivers behind moves to reinforce the separation of church and state, and all the cold war years in which atheist was considered a synonym of communist and dictator. With all those factors combined, I can see how many people might fear that Atheists have an agenda to limit Individual freedoms and suppress religious freedom.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested to see that poll conducted again today. A lot has changed since 1999, especially with respect to public perceptions of Islam.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that many people will vote for Hilary on the republican side. I know rush is encouraging people to do so, but I was imagining a situation where the dems were locked up and the republicans weren't. I could see going and voting on the republican side, but not for someone I despised and thought was the weaker candidate. I know it is strategic voting, but there is still the knowledge that you voted for them. And if they did manage to win the general, then you are partially to blame for that.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Republicans will cross over to vote for Clinton, but polls, and for that matter some history in the last few open elections have shown that though that is the case, far, far more Republicans will cross over and vote for Obama. They even have a name, so called "Obamicans."
Far more of them would prefer him to be president over Clinton than would like to poison the process by trying to have a Clinton/McCain matchup.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
From a rightwing newspaper known for its strong support of Republicans http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080304/NATION/326810167/1001 "...according to a new Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll...a quarter of self-identified Republicans rated Mr. McCain most likable, but nearly as many — 23 percent — chose Mr. Obama as most likable."
posted
Listening to the news coverage tonight (in Texas) makes me think people are really stupid. I think my favorite quote was "I hope the republicans win."
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the amount of attention and media that the primaries are generating this year are confusing a lot of people who don't usually pay much attention to politics. I'm not surprised there are some people out voting who don't fully understand the difference between the primaries and the general election.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
