Obama beats McCain in three swing states: poll - Page 11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Usually Lurkin · 09-18-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Haha, by time to adjust do you mean witness with the rest of america as the current admin watches wall street go down in flames? :P
.

something like 75% of Obama's ads over the past week have been attack ads. Those work. Especially if you are not being reprimanded by the media for it, and especially especially if there's something like the economy that's ticking people off anyway.

rabbitproof · 09-18-2008, 05:48 PM

And McCain's ads are olive branch negotiation ads?

I really think you discredit the American people there. All campaign ads are ridiculous. Is that all it takes? TV commercials? Why campaign then? Just ad it out until November then.

You think those swings take place if the stock market doesn't plunge to a 9/11 worst? McCain calling the fundamentals of our economy strong when it's getting taken to the gutters is far more damning to the average American, even with his post-spin on it, than an Obama attack ad about McCain and a rubic cube.

rabbitproof · 09-18-2008, 05:59 PM

Bottom line, his team has dropped the ball 2-3 times the last few days:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...fe-934251.html

This is after cutting ties with his FIRST economic advisor, the one who called us a nation of whiners:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6007788.html

He'll still get the ball back at some point but he is playing defense right now, most definitely.

Usually Lurkin · 09-18-2008, 06:01 PM

[QUOTE=rabbitproof]And McCain's ads are olive branch negotiation ads?[quote]
I think he had 55% negative ads.

Quote:

I really think you discredit the American people there. All campaign ads are ridiculous. Is that all it takes? TV commercials? Why campaign then? Just ad it out until November then.

by the same token, if ads didn't work, why run them?

Quote:

You think those swings take place if the stock market doesn't plunge to a 9/11 worst? .

yes, but not as much. By another "the same token," now that the stock market has rebounded to end the day, will the polls do the same?

rabbitproof · 09-18-2008, 06:07 PM

Lol at your percentages. I'll just be fair and say they're all attacking ads. Cmon, we all have preferences here but to think either of them are investing dollars and tv time to NOT take down their opponent is incredibly naive or biased.

You run them because the other person runs them. It's like wearing sneakers for a marathon. They help but they don't help you win because everybody does it - it's just the price you pay to play the game

Why DID the market rebound? Could it be the news of government intervention and regulation? Interestinggg.. so, which candidate is touting more regulation? Hmmmmm...

Usually Lurkin · 09-18-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Lol at your percentages. I'll just be fair and say they're all attacking ads. Cmon, we all have preferences here but to think either of them are investing dollars and tv time to NOT take down their opponent is incredibly naive or biased.

um, lol at your butt?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...gative_ads.php
there is an objective way to look at this stuff, and "they're all attack ads" is not it.
Candidates do run attack ads, and the ads do a good job, and to a point they are helpful, cause no candidate is going to tell the public about their own downside. But candidates could spend some time and money using ads to tell people about themselves as well.

Quote:

Why DID the market rebound? Could it be the news of government intervention and regulation? Interestinggg.. so, which candidate is touting more regulation? Hmmmmm...

well, in order to answer that, people would have to be listening to what the candidates are saying as well as making judgments about what they think the economy is doing.

rabbitproof · 09-18-2008, 06:58 PM

So, when were those surveys fielded?

More importantly, if people think Obama's ads are more negative, why are the polls swinging for Obama? Are respondents unconsciously calling the ads effective? Or are they agreeing with the "more negative" ads?

Thanks for posting but I still doubt a ~20% margin in perceived negative ads (fielded over who knows when and with what margin of error) is driving the momentum shift more so than the heavy economic news that's come out in the last 3-4 days.

dude1394 · 09-18-2008, 08:29 PM

The longer the electorate has to listen through the media filters, the lower mccain/palins numbers become, it's as simple as that.

GuerillaBlack · 09-18-2008, 08:33 PM

If Indiana goes blue than there is no stopping a total landslide.

Star/WTHR poll: It's close in Indiana
Poll finds Obama has a fragile edge on McCain, 47% to 44%

September 18, 2008
By Bill Ruthhart and Tim Evans
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...076/-1/ARCHIVE

Sen. Barack Obama holds a tenuous lead over Sen. John McCain in Indiana, with one in four likely voters saying they could change their mind on who to support for president, according to a new Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.

Obama's three-point lead in the poll, 47 percent to 44 percent, reinforces Indiana's status as a battleground in the race for the White House.

Pollster J. Ann Selzer said the poll, with a 4 percentage point margin of error, reflects a lead by Obama that is tentative and reliant on a solid turnout in the Indianapolis metropolitan area.
--------------------

Hoosiers have not supported a Democrat for president since Lyndon B. Johnson's landslide in 1964. Also, on the electoral-vote maps, it's obviously McCain's convention bounce. The same thing happened when McCain was ahead in the national polls and Obama was still leading the EV. Now, Obama is leading in many national polls (Gallup, etc.), as well as leading in states like Indiana now. These state polls lag behind the national polls, so expect to see Obama most likely above 270 in the coming days.

u2sarajevo · 09-18-2008, 08:37 PM

^I am Savovic shocked.

aquaadverse · 09-18-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

And McCain's ads are olive branch negotiation ads?

I really think you discredit the American people there. All campaign ads are ridiculous. Is that all it takes? TV commercials? Why campaign then? Just ad it out until November then.

You think those swings take place if the stock market doesn't plunge to a 9/11 worst? McCain calling the fundamentals of our economy strong when it's getting taken to the gutters is far more damning to the average American, even with his post-spin on it, than an Obama attack ad about McCain and a rubic cube.

People will watch a 30 second spot. The number of people willing to watch debates or full speeches and at least try to figure out the message is a fraction of that number. Much simpler if someone does the thinking part for you. Much better if instead of the hassle of eating salad and cutting meat, just have dessert.

chumdawg · 09-18-2008, 08:52 PM

Selzer's polls are known to lean Democratic. I think everyone believes that Indiana still leans to McCain.

But then again, I am one who thinks that Obama has support that is underrepresented in almost every poll...so who knows.

GuerillaBlack · 09-18-2008, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Selzer's polls are known to lean Democratic. I think everyone believes that Indiana still leans to McCain.

How about this:

It's close in Indiana
Poll: Obama has slight edge on McCain in Indiana

By Bill Ruthhart and Tim Evans
Posted: September 18, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama holds a tenuous lead over Sen. John McCain in Indiana, with one in four likely voters saying they could change their mind on who to support for president, according to a new Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.

Obama's three-point lead in the poll, 47 percent to 44 percent, reinforces Indiana's status as a battleground in the race for the White House.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Tuesday by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, also revealed a geographic disparity between the two candidates: Obama, the Democrat, holds a 54 percent to 40 percent advantage in Indianapolis, but McCain, the Republican, leads in all other regions of the state, including Northwest Indiana.

Pollster J. Ann Selzer said the poll, with a 4 percentage point margin of error, reflects a lead by Obama that is tentative and reliant on a solid turnout in the Indianapolis metropolitan area.

Obama's advantage, the poll found, easily could be erased. That's because one in four likely voters is still up for grabs: Six percent are undecided, and almost 20 percent of voters who say they prefer Obama or McCain say they could be persuaded to vote for someone else.

Also, younger voters and blacks -- critical to an Obama victory -- have not turned out in past elections in Indiana in the numbers that reflect their share of the population.

"The poll shows the race is slippery in Indiana," Selzer said, "and this is a fragile lead."

Jonathan Swain, Obama's Indiana spokesman, said the poll supports the campaign's belief that Obama can turn this historically red state blue for the first time in 44 years.

"This just reinforces what we felt all along: that Indiana is a battleground state that is going to play a key role in who the next president is," Swain said. "Hoosiers are seeing a presidential candidate do what they haven't seen in most of their lifetimes, and that's actively campaign here and actually compete here."

Luke Messer, co-chairman of McCain's Indiana campaign, said he's confident the Arizona senator will win in Indiana.

"Other polling has us ahead, and that's where we believe the race is," Messer said. "Obviously, Barack Obama has spent millions and millions of dollars and has had staff here for months and months, and the question would be: Why isn't he doing better?"

The poll, which surveyed 600 likely voters statewide, showed Obama has done best with blacks, with an overwhelming 94 percent of that population planning to vote for him.

Elsewhere, the poll found McCain has a 48 percent to 41 percent lead among men, but his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has not delivered an advantage among women. Of likely voters, Obama wins with Hoosier women by a margin of 51 percent to 42 percent.

That, however, does not mean McCain's pick of Palin was not popular among those planning to vote for him, as 76 percent said they were very satisfied with the choice and 14 percent satisfied.

Mike Paulin, 49, Indianapolis, said McCain's selection of Palin cemented his support for the Republican ticket.

"Initially, my support was more about not liking Obama," he said. "When McCain chose Palin, with her real strong stance on issues that are important to me, that made McCain a much stronger choice for me."
Paulin said Obama "scares me," because "he hasn't really laid out what he stands for or what his views are."

Obama supporters were less enthusiastic about his choice of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, with 40 percent saying they were very satisfied and 27 percent satisfied. The Obama campaign blamed some of that on Hoosiers' hope that their own Sen. Evan Bayh would be selected.
Beth Kinder, 39, Monticello, said she prefers Biden over Palin, calling McCain's choice a "political ploy."

"The fact that she's a woman and I'm a woman, so I should support her, I don't buy into that," Kinder said of Palin. "That is the wrong reason to vote for someone."

Kinder, a Republican, said she's voting for Obama because she believes he is best suited to address issues most important to her: high gas prices, jobs and the economy.

"He comes with a lot of energy," she said. "I see great things coming from him."

The poll showed Hoosier voters are more confident in Obama's ability to handle the economy, with 44 percent saying he is best equipped to bring new jobs to Indiana, compared with 30 percent for McCain.

More: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...0502/809180460

Flacolaco · 09-18-2008, 09:08 PM

Yeah...Obama has 35 offices open in Indiana and McCain has zero, and the % is within the error margin.

Maybe McCain can push back a little by just showing up. Who knows?

chumdawg · 09-18-2008, 09:37 PM

Well, I don't know if Obama can win Indiana (I tend to think he won't), but if he does it's pretty much lights out for McCain.

rabbitproof · 09-18-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

People will watch a 30 second spot. The number of people willing to watch debates or full speeches and at least try to figure out the message is a fraction of that number. Much simpler if someone does the thinking part for you. Much better if instead of the hassle of eating salad and cutting meat, just have dessert.

Oh, I hear ya. There's a reason why a regular second on good TV costs you upwards of 50k. Zombie nation, etc.

That said, I think these simple minded TV minions got way more exposed to the crashing financial markets coverage (with possible personal real life impacts - either directly or indirectly) than all the TV spots for both parties (which might cancel each other out) combined over the last few days.

One can draw their own conclusions from that on what's causing the polls to tip.

GuerillaBlack · 09-20-2008, 08:07 AM

Obama: 273
McCain 265

http://electoral-vote.com/

Flacolaco · 09-20-2008, 08:18 AM

Two days ago it had McCain in the lead and you didn't post it then.

You should work for the NY Times.

GuerillaBlack · 09-20-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Two days ago it had McCain in the lead and you didn't post it then.

You should work for the NY Times.

I wasn't even here when McCain was in the lead. It's not like you post anything when Obama leads, so...

dude1394 · 09-20-2008, 10:01 AM

the longer everyone gets their news from the obama-media, the worse it will get. It will take the debates and people being able to see them unfiltered for it to turn around I expect.

You can't have the entire USMedia looking, hunting, making up dirt about you without it having an effect.

Mavdog · 09-20-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

the longer everyone gets their news from the obama-media, the worse it will get. It will take the debates and people being able to see them unfiltered for it to turn around I expect.

You can't have the entire USMedia looking, hunting, making up dirt about you without it having an effect.

nothing like exaggeration and hyperbole in an attempt to make a point....

"they're all against us!"

ridiculous.

GuerillaBlack · 09-20-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

the longer everyone gets their news from the obama-media, the worse it will get. It will take the debates and people being able to see them unfiltered for it to turn around I expect.

You can't have the entire USMedia looking, hunting, making up dirt about you without it having an effect.

Seriously? Whenever Obama is ahead, especially CNN, they start posting articles link "McCain Hammers Obama..." and things like that. They just want good ratings. You thinking the media is against you all is just amazing, and shows how desperate the Repub base is right now.

Dtownsfinest · 09-20-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

the longer everyone gets their news from the obama-media, the worse it will get. It will take the debates and people being able to see them unfiltered for it to turn around I expect.

You can't have the entire USMedia looking, hunting, making up dirt about you without it having an effect.

The media is against Republicans huh?

Hilarious. Even if that were true Faux News makes up for any bias that you think the media has for democrats and Obama. The media is just running with the real "celebrity" which is Palin. Funny that republicans accused Obama for being a "celebrity". Haven't heard a peep of that since Palin was named Vice President.

Kirobaito · 09-20-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

The media is against Republicans huh?

Hilarious. Even if that were true Faux News makes up for any bias that you think the media has for democrats and Obama. The media is just running with the real "celebrity" which is Palin. Funny that republicans accused Obama for being a "celebrity". Haven't heard a peep of that since Palin was named Vice President.

Actually Fred Thompson specifically said "Sarah Palin isn't on the cover of Time Magazine" as a means of taking a shot at Obama's celebrity the day she was on Time Magazine.

Murphy3 · 09-20-2008, 01:25 PM

Obviously there is a media bias against Republicans. No intelligent person would argue that.

GuerillaBlack · 09-20-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Obviously there is a media bias against Republicans. No intelligent person would argue that.

Seriously? Republicans own the radio waves for one thing. Second, you have Fox News and anytime Obama leads, CNN puts out articles of McCain/Palin "hammering Obama".

Murphy3 · 09-20-2008, 01:40 PM

Absolutely... perhaps it's relatively close with the major networks, but when you factor in all the stations that give time to actors and musicians that probably swing Democrat 9-1, it's not even remotely close..

Dtownsfinest · 09-20-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Absolutely... perhaps it's relatively close with the major networks, but when you factor in all the stations that give time to actors and musicians that probably swing Democrat 9-1, it's not even remotely close..

I'm sure if more celebrity's were republicans they would give the same exact time to them. Fact is, you can only interview an irrelevant Chuck Norris so many times.

Quote:

Actually Fred Thompson specifically said "Sarah Palin isn't on the cover of Time Magazine" as a means of taking a shot at Obama's celebrity the day she was on Time Magazine.

Well now they're throwing subliminals. At first they'd come outright and attack Obama's celebrity.

Murphy3 · 09-20-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

I'm sure if more celebrity's were republicans they would give the same exact time to them. Fact is, you can only interview an irrelevant Chuck Norris so many times.

Well now they're throwing subliminals. At first they'd come outright and attack Obama's celebrity.

My point was that so many stations are geared towards the younger audiences that they lean heavily to the left.... It's not all about just 'interviewing' celebrities... it's playing to their crowd.

Do I blame them? No, not really. But yeah, there is a media bias in the US... I think you need to branch out a bit when considering what you believe is and is not media and who does and does not impact the decision making processes of the US. Unfortunately, people listen to fat cows such as Oprah... For some reason, the average fat-assed house wife gives a damn about what she thinks... And yeah, some people care about what their favorite musician or actor thinks..

It's just the way it is. I do believe that there's probably a bias in the traditional media towards dems... but when you factor in non-traditional "news" media, the bias is pretty large.

chumdawg · 09-20-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

For some reason, the average fat-assed house wife gives a damn about what she thinks...

I'd say the same thing about Palin...if it in fact were true.

dude1394 · 09-20-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Obviously there is a media bias against Republicans. No intelligent person would argue that.

It's so blatantly obvious to argue it shows a break from reality. Go look at washpost front pages, memorandum.com, time.com, etc.

Folks talke about the radio...as if that makes up for all of the television media and newspaper. If it DID advertising for a 30second radio spot would wouldn't be an order of magnitude cheaper.

There's one television station FOX and the democrats won't even come on it. So by definitiion there are the rest.

dude1394 · 09-20-2008, 05:00 PM

I mean when you use the WashingtonPost as the "record" then get criticized by the WashingtonPost for USING them as the "record" what exaclty can you take away from it, other than a ridiculous media bias.

Quote:

Posted at 8:25 PM on 9/19/2008 by Michael Goldfarb
Washington Post Attacks Washington Post

The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs fact checks the ad this campaign released yesterday titled "Advice":

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth.

Pretty flimsy? As Dobbs goes on to say, that "pretty flimsy" source is his own paper, the Washington Post. The Post reported that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." It then recycled that information into two more pieces, one of which was an editorial. But we're willing to make a deal. If Dobbs admits his newspaper is not a credible source, we'll take down the ad.

Mavdog · 09-20-2008, 05:25 PM

what obfuscation...

the ad in question asks "Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy."

and the connection of obama and raines is what? does raines consult ot volunteer for the obama campaign? nah, not even close.

let's go to the very washington post fact check article that michael goldfarb's blog ridicules, but fails to cite:

Quote:

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post business reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply.

this is about disingenuous as can be. it's analogous to saying that mccain takes advice on the mortgage crisis from anthony mozilla, the infamous ex-ceo of countrywide, because someone with the mccain campaign chatted together at a dinner party....

so this does NOT indicate a media bias at all, but it does reveal just how dishonest a campaign can get in their quest to win.

chumdawg · 09-20-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

There's one television station FOX and the democrats won't even come on it. So by definitiion there are the rest.

Obama had a sit down a couple weeks ago with O'Reilly, or don't you recall? FOX stretched that interview out over four nights!

I find FoxNEWS fairly well slanted to the right, ABC slightly slanted to the right, and MSNBC very heavily slanted to the left. I find CNN pretty reliably toward the middle, if slightly left.

rabbitproof · 09-20-2008, 05:52 PM

mavdog,

yeah, negative campaigning... eye for an eye i suppose:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=QPUuHCHRY4g

but best of three, i suppose:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/oba...nst-mccai.html

Mavdog · 09-20-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

mavdog,

yeah, negative campaigning... eye for an eye i suppose:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=QPUuHCHRY4g

the people referenced, carly fiorina, phil gramm and george bush, are involved with the mccain campaign.

is there an inaccuracy in this ad that you could tell us about?

Quote:

but best of three, i suppose:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/oba...nst-mccai.html

here is the transcription of the above ad:

Quote:

This morning Senator McCain gave a speech in which his big solution to this worldwide economic crisis was to blame me for it.

This is a guy who's spent nearly three decades in Washington, and after spending the entire campaign saying I haven't been in Washington long enough, he apparently now is willing to assign me responsibility for all of Washington's failures.

Now, I think it's a pretty clear that Senator McCain is a little panicked right now. At this point he seems to be willing to say anything or do anything or change any position or violate any principal to try and win this election, and I've got to say it's kind of sad to see. That's not the politics we need.

It's also been disappointing to see my opponent's reaction to this economic crisis. His first reaction on Monday was to stand up and repeat the line he's said over and over again throughout this campaign -- 'the fundamentals of the economy are strong' -- the comment was so out of touch that even George Bush's White House couldn't agree with it.

what is your issue with what obama said? seems like acceptable and normal campaign rhetoric....

rabbitproof · 09-20-2008, 06:16 PM

oh i'm with you... just poking fun at the research that shows obama shows more "negative" ads with a case of clearly reactionary advertising.

i also liked how obama came back to mccain with the same creative (intro, pacing, style) but with facts instead of stretched insinuations.. and the speech video just summarized both ads, i feel.

Mavdog · 09-20-2008, 06:19 PM

sorry, did not see the sarcasm....

rabbitproof · 09-20-2008, 06:25 PM

Numbers confirming the gut feel..

----

Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman

Rest of it: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-...lse-obama-race

rabbitproof · 09-20-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Obama had a sit down a couple weeks ago with O'Reilly, or don't you recall? FOX stretched that interview out over four nights!

I find FoxNEWS fairly well slanted to the right, ABC slightly slanted to the right, and MSNBC very heavily slanted to the left. I find CNN pretty reliably toward the middle, if slightly left.