TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Inevitability of Hillary and Rudy?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Haha, wow.
I just re-read your posts and for a "professor" you have truly heinous grammar, way to bullshit on the internet...Most people just claim to have a huge cock and a hot GF, you've taken it to the next level man!
*laughs at guliani*
From Des Moines.
If the Iowa Caucus is any indication, the political winds are changing already.
| quote: |
| December 1, 2007 Obama pulls ahead for Democrats in Iowa Poll; Huckabee, Obama now lead By THOMAS BEAUMONT REGISTER STAFF WRITER Barack Obama has pulled ahead in the race for Iowa's Democratic presidential caucuses, while the party's national frontrunner Hillary Clinton has slipped to second in the leadoff nominating state, according to The Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll. Despite the movement, the race for 2008's opening nominating contest remains very competitive about a month before the Jan. 3 caucuses, just over half of likely caucusgoers who favor a candidate saying they could change their minds. Obama, an Illinois senator, leads for the first time in the Register's poll as the choice of 28 percent of likely caucusgoers, up from 22 percent in October. Clinton, a New York senator, was the preferred candidate of 25 percent, down from 29 percent in the previous poll. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who led in the Register's May poll, held steady with 23 percent, in third place, but part of the three-way battle. The lead change appears after weeks of increasing criticism of Clinton by Obama and Edwards about her position on U.S. policy toward Iran and questions of her candor. Meanwhile, Clinton has recently begun accusing Obama of inexperience and criticizing his proposal to expand health insurance coverage. The poll shows what has continued to be a wide gap between the top three candidates and the remainder of the field. The telephone survey of 500 likely Democratic caucusgoers was conducted Nov. 25 to 28 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Iowa City Democrat Katharyn Browne said she abandoned her support for Clinton in the past month and now supports Obama in light of the Iran issue. Obama spent weeks in October and November attacking Clinton's support for a measure that allowed President Bush to declare the Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a move Obama said was a step toward war. Clinton said the measure enhanced U.S. negotiating strength with Iran. "An Iran war terrifies me," said Browne, a 30-year-old University of Iowa student. Browne said she feels Obama is a more inspirational candidate than Clinton, despite the intensifying crossfire between them. "I just think that Obama is more of a positive candidate overall," she said. "Aside from the Clinton-Obama interaction lately, it's nice to hear a candidate with a positive outlook. I think our country needs that right now." Browne, who supported Clinton early partly out of gender loyalty, represents a shift among some women caucusgoers from Clinton to Obama. In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama. Women represent roughly six in 10 Democratic caucusgoers, according to the new poll. Obama also dominates among younger caucusgoers, with support from 48 percent from those younger than 35. Clinton was the choice of 19 percent in that group and Edwards of 17 percent. The under-35 bloc represents 14 percent of Democratic caucusgoers, up from 9 percent in the October poll. Obama has an advantage among first-time caucusgoers. He also leads among people who say they definitely will attend the caucuses. Clinton is the top choice among caucusgoers 55 years old and older. The largest share of Democratic caucusgoers � exactly half � are in this age group. Pleasant Hill Democrat Jack Hill is one of them. The 61-year-old salesman said Clinton is battle-tested and capable of bringing about changes on the domestic and international fronts. "She's a tough old cookie," said Hill. "She's a tough woman and I feel we need a change from politics as usual." Clinton continued to rate highest on key traits, such as most presidential, knowledgeable about the world, electable and experienced. She also was seen as the most ego-driven and negative. Clinton and Obama were viewed as the most committed to public service, while Obama led on traits such as most likeable, principled and best able bring together Republicans and Democrats. The former first lady continues to face stubborn misgivings, despite her dozens of visits to the state this year and increasing campaign presence of her husband, the popular former president. Thirty percent of Democratic caucusgoers viewed Sen. Clinton as either mostly or very unfavorably, behind U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. She topped the list of candidates whose nomination would be one of the biggest disappointments at 27 percent. Other troubling news for Clinton included a sharp decline in support from members of union households, where she was the preferred candidate with support from 34 percent in the October poll. In the new poll, Clinton is third among union households with 21 percent. Obama and Edwards have recently criticized Clinton's past support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which they argue cost the United States millions of jobs. Clinton has said recently the trade pact, enacted during her husband's first term, did not deliver. Obama's support among caucusgoers from union households rose from 20 percent to 28 percent since the October poll, while Edwards narrowly led, rising from 24 percent to 29 percent since the October poll. Edwards, who finished second in the 2004 caucuses, led narrowly among men in the new poll and was tied with Clinton for the favorite in Iowa's rural areas. Rural Centerville Democrat Candace Scritchfield supported Edwards in 2004 and plans to again. "He's a very down-to-earth and trustworthy person," said Scritchfield, a 44-year-old homemaker. "He has a lot of loyalty, that I can tell." There was little movement in the rest of the field, despite aggressive campaigning in Iowa in the eight weeks between the two polls. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson remained in fourth place as the choice of 9 percent and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden remained in fifth with 6 percent, both virtually unchanged from the October poll. All others had support from 2 percent or less. Presidential preferences include people leaning toward supporting a candidate. Seven percent said they were uncommitted or unsure about whom to support. |
| quote: |
| Republicans. � Giuliani: 25%; vs 28% in the previous survey, taken Nov. 11-14; and 34% in a Nov. 2-4 survey. So, his support has fallen 9 percentage points in a month. � Mike Huckabee: 16%; vs. 10% in the previous survey; and 6% before that. His support has risen 10 percentage points in a month. � Fred Thompson: 15%; vs. 19% in the previous survey; and 17% before that. � Sen. John McCain: 15%; vs. 13% in the previous survey; and 18% before that. � Mitt Romney: 12%; unchanged from the previous survey; and 14% before that. No other GOP candidate was above 4%. Democrats. � Clinton: 39%; vs. 48% in the previous survey; and 50% before that. Her support has fallen 11 percentage points in a month. � Sen. Barack Obama: 24%; vs. 21% in the previous survey; and 22% before that. � John Edwards: 15%; vs. 12% in the previous survey; and 15% before that. No other candidate was above 4%. |
No matter how much people dislike Hillary...how the fuck could anyone vote for this asshole?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis No matter how much people dislike Hillary...how the fuck could anyone vote for this asshole? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Lol @ "I do not talk to anyone that accuses me of corruption." Just exactly how many people does that leave these days? |
I didn't expect my prediction to shape up so quickly. I think the moment is fast approaching where we can forget Giuliani and Romney.
| quote: |
| Another national poll, this a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times survey, shows Mike Huckabee moving into second place: Democrats: Clinton 45% Obama 21% Edwards 11% Republicans: Giuliani 23% Huckabee 17% Thompson 14% McCain 11% Romney 9% Rudy has fallen nine points since the last Bloomberg/LAT poll in October, while Huckabee has climbed ten points. Thompson, McCain and Romney have all fallen one or two points each, but those are not statistically significant changes. |
| quote: |
| Mike Huckabee's surge apparently isn't just happening in Iowa � he's moving up nationwide, too. The new Gallup poll has Huck in a three-way tie for second. Rudy Giuliani leads with a 25% plurality, with Huckabee at 16%, Fred Thompson 15%, John McCain 15%, and Mitt Romney 12%. Huckabee has gone up an amazing ten points in the last month. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton still has a national plurality of 39%, but it's down from a 50% high a month ago. Barack Obama has 24%, and John Edwards 15%. |
Romney was up early this morning to convince the Republican base that being a Mormon ain't so bad. Needless to say, it was a smoke and mirrors show.
| quote: |
Romney's speech over. Didn't say squat. Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 09:06:23 AM PST OK, the "big" Mitt Romney speech is over. He didn't say the word "Mormon" once, I don't think. [UPDATE: Final word count score -- Mormon: 1; Muslim/Islam/jihad: 5] So to the extent that you bought the hype and tuned in because you had genuine questions about the LDS church, you came away empty-handed. And possibly with the nagging feeling that Romney's hiding something after all. What the speech did succeed in showing is that the Romney operation is the nearest successor (to date) to the Bush operation in its willingness to play the press corps for suckers. Promise a "major address" on some pressing issue, play the expectations game according to the Conventional Wisdom -- that is, raising the stakes by having surrogates use back channels to inflate expectations about the importance of the substance to be addressed -- and then turn it all on its head by delivering nothing of what was promised, and daring the press corps to write their stories with their pants down, having played into the game of promising something big. The other master stroke here was the choice of venue: the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. That puts the Romney name next to the Bush name in the papers -- a grab at the mantle, if people will just look past the "H" -- and it allows Romney to deliver what was essentially Republican religionist pablum (I believe in God, He should be on our money, plus we need "our kind" of judges) from behind a podium bearing the presidential seal. A media consultant's dream come true, and what should be a fat bonus for the advance team (but they never get the money). Romney also managed to squeeze in a mention of "jihad," just so you wouldn't forget that he has promised to exclude Muslims from his cabinet, even as he was supposedly there to appeal to the American sense of religious tolerance. But then, by skipping out entirely on what was supposed to be the point of the speech -- his Mormonism -- he didn't really do that, so I suppose all's fair, right? Finally, there was the ridiculous comparison to JFK's 1960 speech. I say the comparison is ridiculous because the situations were completely different. In September 1960, Kennedy was the nominee of the Democratic Party, and faced the task of reassuring Americans that his faith would not conflict with the duties of the office he sought, and upon which Americans would decide within weeks. Today, Romney is just one of several Republican contenders, so his task was actually to convince the evangelical core residing within the Republican Party that his faith is not incompatible with their deciding to let him carry the Republican banner into an election that's still almost a year away. Kennedy's target, by necessity, was the greater America. Romney's target, by necessity, was Republican evangelicals. (Hence the early plug: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Freedom requires religion? Really? That's really intriguing. How so? Oh nevermind, he's not taking questions.) So it should surprise no one that he revealed nothing about his actual religion (which was how the speech was sold), given that an actual appeal for tolerance based on an honest recounting of his theology would have been political suicide. The question now is, has the media invested so much in insisting that this was indeed what the speech was going to be about that they won't be able to admit he ducked the issue entirely? Or is it just easier to say he did what he set out to do, because that story is already written? |
Romney is such a fuckwit. He's like an anoying used-car salesman yes-man. I'm amazed no one is calling him a flip-flopper the guy changes his opinion, personal history, stance, and childhood memories almost daily...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis Romney is such a fuckwit. He's like an anoying used-car salesman yes-man. I'm amazed no one is calling him a flip-flopper the guy changes his opinion, personal history, stance, and childhood memories almost daily... |
Huckabee has a 22 point lead in Iowa despite a myriad of mis-steps this week. But then again, God is leading his campaign.
We'll see if the momentum carries him through pardoning a serial rapist who went on to kill all because his victim was a Clinton (and therefore probably making the rape up by his logic), denying his role in the pardon, claiming that God wants him to win, lashing out at the media, failing to familiarize himself in any way with the NIE, and on top of it all, making an argument that quarantining AIDS victims or homosexuals in general would make good public health policy.
Damn, it must be easy to be a popular Republican.
| quote: |
| LITTLE ROCK, Ark. � Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk." |
I'm really getting a laugh out of these:
http://www.dickipedia.org/index.php?title=Rudy_Giuliani
| quote: |
| In February of 2007, Giuliani decided to give all Americans the chance to feel the same visceral hatred for him that New Yorkers did by the time he finally left them alone, and filed a statement of candidacy for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. |
| quote: |
| Giuliani gained international attention during and after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, as he is sure to mention every time he opens his mouth. For instance, if Giuliani is at a restaurant and he wants the eggs, when the waitress comes to take his order he will say, �I�ll have the eggs. Also, I was the hero of 9/11.� It is the cornerstone of his campaign. Without 9/11, his campaign would have to go with, �Giuliani: He�s a Loathsome, Power-mad Lunatic,� which, many political observers note, is generally considered not to be an effective electoral strategy. |
| quote: |
| At the time, the United States was engaged in the war in Vietnam. Giuliani supported the war, and would have fought in it if he hadn�t been born with a crippling disability: a complete lack of courage. |
| quote: |
| Giuliani later claimed to have been at Ground Zero "as often, if not more, than most workers... I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them." In Giuliani�s defense, records indicate that if any of those workers had spent only 29 hours at the site over the three months following the attacks, then, yes, Giuliani�s claim is true. Contrary to the claims of his presidential campaign, many firefighters, police, rescue workers, and victims� families argue that "Giuliani has exaggerated the role he played after the terrorist attacks, casting himself as a hero for political gain." But perhaps they are just jealous, due to their inability to follow the oft-stated maxim of Tammy Faye Bakker that �when life serves you lemons, make lemonade.� Giuliani has been very good at making lemonade from the lemon of the attacks. Before 9/11, his net worth was put at less than $2 million. Now, it is as much as 30 times that. |
| quote: |
| Since leaving office, Giuliani has devoted himself to the idea that the best way to honor those who sacrificed their lives on 9/11 would be to the cleanup, investigate how the response could have been better and figure out how to prevent another attack in the future make as much money as possible. |
| quote: |
| Critics have also disparaged the way Giuliani chose to end the relationship. His supporters contend that, in fact, Giuliani did not do it over email or in a phone call, ways considered to be not very classy. Instead, Giuliani chose to inform Hanover that he was seeking a divorce in the classiest way possible: in a television press conference. |
| quote: |
| Sometimes Rodham, sometimes Clinton, sometimes Rodham Clinton (but never Rodham-Clinton), she has neither kept her maiden name nor fully taken her husband�s, thus allowing her, in true Hillary fashion, to have it both ways whenever the purpose suits her. |
| quote: |
| During her husband�s tenure, Hillary was subjected to one of the most public and embarrassing scandals in presidential history. In critical retrospect, one can�t help but deduce that the entire predicament would have been avoided entirely had Hillary just acquiesced to gargling the presidential marbles every once in a while. |
| quote: |
| Hillary is a powerful woman succeeding in a man�s world. Naturally, this has caused speculation that she is really a lesbian. Not so much a Janet Reno lesbian, but more of a Melissa Etheridge lesbian (minus the guitar and David Crosby�s semen). However, these accusations are unfounded, and based purely on conjecture. Mrs. Clinton is not, in fact, a Sapphist, although she does pee standing up. |
hahaha...that website is pure awesomeness.
| quote: |
| David Blaine : David Blaine (born David Blaine White on April 4, 1973 in Brooklyn, New York City, USA) is an American illusionist, stunt performer and dick. His father was Spanish�Puerto Rican and his mother was Jewish, making him one of the first known Spanish/Puerto Rican/Jewish dicks (Jewricanspanick). Blaine is best known for taking himself way too seriously. |
| quote: |
| On Monday, May 22, 2002, Blaine stood on a pole 90 feet high and 22 inches wide for more than 34 hours without food, water, or anything to rest his ego on. His goatee would not return to normal for several weeks. |
| quote: |
| Blaine sat for 44 days in a Plexiglass box suspended over the River Thames in London. Okay, we get it. Guy keeps magically coming up with ways to do nothing for long periods of time. What else you got? |
| quote: |
| � He has Primo Levi's concentration camp number, 174517, tattooed on his left forearm. Both men stand as a reminder of the ability of the human spirit to withstand seemingly endless stretches of time under inhuman, barbaric conditions and be paid handsomely for it, except not Primo Levi. � There have been many allegations that Blaine is in fact the Antichrist and/or a demon because of his use of magic, but as religious scholars have pointed out, even Satan has better facial hair. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Omega_M Holy shit, this made me lol |
| quote: |
| Simpson was born in San Francisco where he grew up with his two sisters, Shirley Simpson-Baker and Carmelita Simpson-Durio, and brother, Melvin Leon "Truman" Simpson. He did not murder them. As a lifelong dick who excelled at football, Simpson naturally found his way to a school known for both of these pursuits: the University of Southern California. At USC Simpson became a star running back and won the Heisman Trophy in 1968. No Heisman winner has won by a larger margin of victory, nor has one ever gone on to be accused of murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Simpson is also the subject of an Arnold Friberg oil painting called �O.J. Simpson breaks for daylight.� It is not a reference to running away from police after murdering one�s ex-wife and Ron Goldman. |
I'm sure you've read the bios in the Rotten Library. Just as funny.
| quote: |
Mitt Romney has been forced to get into some serious verbal gymnastics over his previous declaration about seeing his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, marching with Martin Luther King. A close examination of the historical records shows that the elder Romney, while he was a strong support of civil rights, never actually appeared with King. "I've tried to be as accurate as I can be," Romney told reporters. "If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes being aware of � in the sense I've described." "I'm an English literature major," he added, after the questions didn't stop. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there." (Yes, he did speak off the cuff about the idea of a football team winning the World Series.) |
I really, really, am sad for any American who wholeheartedly thinks Mitt Romney would make a good president.
Really.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis I really, really, am sad for any American who wholeheartedly thinks Mitt Romney would make a good president. Really. |
| quote: |
| When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no. |
| quote: |
| "In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes," the paper says. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur I know I predicted Obama and Huckabee in the original post in this thread (and look how polls have vindicated me!), but the Huckabee campaign's ineptitude and Romney's desire to drag Huckabee down with him makes me think there is room for McCain to move up if he finishes well in New Hampshire (where he could win). |
Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States:
New survey has Hillary dominating Obama 34%-19% If Obama can't beat her, noone can.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-from-the-pack/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Ladies and gentlemen: The next President of the United States: New survey has Hillary dominating Obama 34%-19% If Obama can't beat her, noone can. ] |
| quote: |
| December 26, 2007 Polling on the Dark Side of the Moon Those of us with memories of the Apollo moon missions will remember those moments when the orbiting command module went around the so-called "dark side of the moon."** At that point the moon itself physically blocked broadcast signals, and despite all the dazzling "space age" telecommunications on display, live transmissions from the astronauts came to a total halt. While Walter Cronkite stalled for time, we watched and waited for the astronauts to regain contact. Right now, with interest peaking in Iowa and New Hampshire polls, we have entered into our own dark side of the moon period. Unlike the moon missions, however, we are not in a total blackout. At least one pollster has released an Iowa survey conducted over the weekend, and others will surely follow later this week. However, with so many Americans traveling away from home for holiday travel, those surveys will be of unknown reliability, at best. The worst-case scenario (for the pollsters) will be if these surveys indicate a false trend, a shift that is less an indicator of real change than an artifact of respondents missing due to holiday travel. Unfortunately, the survey research profession has relatively little experience with surveys conducted in the week between Christmas and the New Year (and the weekends surrounding that week). All of the polling firms I worked with rarely fielded surveys in the second half of December and typically shut down altogether between Christmas and New Years. CBS News Polling Director Kathy Frankovic reports in her column this week that the Roper Center archives include no public polls conducted between Christmas and New Years for either 2006 or in 2003 (other than one continuously running financial monitoring survey). The reason that pollsters typically avoid polling around the holidays is the assumption that a big chunk of the population is away from home and unavailable for survey calls. As with any sort of "non-response" problem, we risk getting skewed or biased results if the missing respondents are both numerous and different in terms of their political views from those at home when we call. What kinds of voters might be missing right now? Three years ago, in a survey concluded a full week before the holidays (12/15-17/2004), the Gallup Organization asked a national sample of 1,002 adults whether they planned "to travel more than fifty miles from home this holiday season." Twenty-eight percent (28%) said "yes." More important, as the table below indicates (based on data drawn from the Roper Archives), those planning holiday travel had a very distinctive demographic profile. Holiday travelers were much more likely to be younger and better educated. Notice also that holiday travelers were not just college students. Adults between the ages of 30 and 44 are twice as likely to travel for the holidays than those over 65. (Also, while I do not show it here, the pattern in these results by age, education and income was nearly identical for Democratic and Republican identifiers). 12-26%20holiday%20travel.png So pollsters fielding surveys this week are going to have a harder time finding younger, better educated respondents. Why is that important? Because in the Democratic race, at least, there are huge differences in vote preference by age and education: In virtually every survey, including those in Iowa and New Hampshire, Barack Obama does best among younger, better educated voters while Hillary Clinton's base of support is older and less well educated. Consider the data from the Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire survey conducted last week: Obama wins the support of 47% of voters age 18 to 34, but only 22% of those over 65; 40% of those with graduate degrees but only 25% of those without a college degree. 12-26%20unh%20by%20age%20gender.png Given the age and education pattern, a sample with fewer voters under 45 or fewer with a college education will skew in Clinton's favor. Pollsters who see a demographic shift may choose to "weight" their samples to match the demographics of pre-holiday polls. That approach may lessen the bias but not correct it entirely. Weighting by age and education in this instance essentially replaces the younger, college educated voters who are away from home with other younger, college educated voters who are available to do the survey. If travelers and non-travelers are still different politically, regardless of age or education, then some bias will remain. And even if not, an extreme "weighting up" always increases the statistical error, in effect reducing the sample size. Do we have any evidence that holiday travel bias might affect vote preference? Maybe. Consider the data below reported by Rasmussen Reports just before and after the Thanksgiving holiday. Rasmussen runs a daily, rolling-average national survey that tracks presidential primary vote preference. Rasmussen uses an automated interactive-voice-response (IVR) methodology in which respondents answer recorded questions by pressing keys on their touch-tone phones. Each night, they call roughly 175-200 likely Democratic primary voters and roughly 150-160 likely Republican voters, then roll together and report a rolling average of the last four nights of interviews. Thus, each of the points on the chart below represents 750-800 likely Democratic voters with a reported margin of sampling error of +/-4%. The trend line is a regression estimate that Charles Franklin created for me using the Rasmussen data. 12-26%20rasmussen%20tracking400.png Notice what happens to the Obama trend line just before and just after Rasmussen took a five-day break from interviewing, Wednesday through Sunday, over the Thanksgiving weekend (Thanksgiving was November 22). The regression trend line essentially splits the difference between the 17% low points immediately before and after the Thanksgiving break and the much higher 26% results that came just before and just after that. What one makes of the variation may be in the eye of the beholder. Either the Obama trend got unusually erratic in both directions during the last two weeks of November, or there was a very unusual and precipitous plunge from what should have been a plateau around 24-26 to 17% centered on the period of Sunday, Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving and the Monday just after. Either way, the Obama variation around Thanksgiving was highly statistically significant. It did not occur by chance alone. Either there was a see-saw in Obama's real world support that week, or something changed in the kinds of voters Rasmussen sampled. Given what we know about the demographics of holiday travelers and Obama's supporters, I'd bet on the latter. Now I should point out that the Rasmussen national tracking may be a special case. According to Scott Rasmussen, each daily sample is essentially "fresh." Unlike many other pollsters, they do not attempt to call back unavailable respondents on successive nights. If they sample your phone number on Monday and you are not home, they will not call you back again on Tuesday. As such, their surveys may be more prone to a holiday effect than others that do more callbacks. And while I believe that Rasmussen weights their samples by gender, age and race to force consistency for each four-day report, they may not weight by education. All of this brings us to the survey that the American Research Group released on Monday fielded between Thursday December 20 through Sunday December 23, a survey that shows Clinton gaining and Obama falling. Some will read this post as an attempt to debunk that result, and the findings above certainly argue for considerable caution in reading results from any survey this week. But the problem in trying to assess the ARG poll is that we know so little about it. Does ARG make call-backs to unavailable respondents? What was the sample composition on any ARG Iowa survey this year in terms of age and education level, and was this one suddenly different? Did ARG weight the results by age or education this time, and if so, by how much? We are in the dark on all of these questions. It is also worth remembering, as some commenters noted yesterday, that real changes may be occurring in vote preference this week even if surveys may be severely challenged in their ability to measure it. Clinton may be gaining and Obama falling. So it is quite a leap for anyone to say they know conclusively that the ARG result is either right or wrong. The hard truth is that we are behind the dark side of the moon this week, and we may not know much with certainty until next Wednesday night. **Technically, the moon does not have a "dark side." Although the more appropriate term is "far side" of the moon, I still prefer the Pink Floyd version. -- Mark Blumenthal |
First we have a father-son presidency. Now we're going to have a husband-wife presidency. Why are we becoming dynastic?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Omega_M Also check Dick Cheney |
| quote: |
| In 1989 Cheney became Secretary of Defense for President George H.W. Bush. In defending the decision not to take Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein at the time, he said: �I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties...And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is, not that damned many.� This is known as �irony. |
I wonder why they don't have an article on George W. Bush
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.