[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

This is gonna sound stupid but, I gotta say this somewhere.




I really doubt the intelligence of a ton of people who are voting, and doubt even more that at least half of them have fully looked at their candidates.

What sticks in my mind is seeing statistics showing how much white men, black men, white women, and black women get paid; showing how much less the minorities earn because...well, there's still some BS in the pay roll that hasn't been cleared out.

In the poll, black men still got less cut out of their pay check than white women.


So y'know, I really do wonder how many votes came down to "I'd rather have a black MAN as president than a WOMAN."

Slightly off-topic, but I've had the idea in mind for a while and wanted to say it. xD

Sounds like democracy to me. Blacks feel discriminated against and believe at best, things will get better under Obama, and at worst, things won't get worse. You vote for your interests, and many people feel their interests will be better protected by Obama.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

Well it looks like it will almost certainly be Obama. Recent polls show him taking the lead in Pennsylvania, where he recently was down 25 percentage points. Pennsylvania was viewed as an easy win for Clinton, and now the tables are turning.

Which polls are you looking at?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164

This poll says clinton is still in the lead. I don't think she'll lose that state. Obama is spending 3x the amount of money in PA right now on advertising. I think they know that, they have to narrow the gap or a large victory in PA is gonna send shivers down obama's camp.

[meimei]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics2695905

Clinton still leads in three of the four polls released yesterday and today, but in every poll, including the first in which Obama took a lead (although, a statistically insignificant one), she has dropped at least a few points.

Obama moved into a 45 percent to 43 percent lead over Hillary Clinton in a March 31-April 1 survey conducted by Public Policy Polling. While the lead is not statistically significant -- the margin of error is 2.8 percent -- it marks the first time in any of the polls taken there this year that Obama has caught up to Clinton, who had enjoyed double-digit leads most of the way. Two polls yesterday had Clinton still ahead, but both noted erosion in her support. The last PPP poll a little over two weeks ago had Clinton ahead by 26 points.

PPP's Dean Debnam said, "the major movement in Obama's direction in Pennsylvania could be an indication that Democrats in that state think it's time to wrap it up."

But the Quinnipiac poll conducted March 24-31 says Clinton still leads 50 percent to 41 percent, which is 3 points lower for her than its mid-March survey . The margin of error is 2.5 percent.

Yeah, it seems like Clinton's still leading.. bhamlaxy probably got the data from the poll by Public Policy Polling.. but either way, she had a HUGE lead, and Obama is closing in.

[bhamlaxy]

Different polls say different things, but I'm just looking at the trend. Clinton was POUNDING Obama for the longest time in Pennsylvania, and now not only has he caught up, some polls even predict him winning! With a couple weeks left, I can only see this trend continuing.

And meimei was right, I was referring to the PPP poll, which is a very good one. They were the closest out of all polls in predicting Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. And I highly doubt this will be the first poll to put Obama in the lead there. Just wait.

[Zodia]

i don't think polls matter. Bush lost in everything, but the poll ON THE FOX MEDIA said he won, so he did, and nobody said anything. He owns fox.


Anyway, when my boy obama gets to the whitehouse, he's gonna have it repainted and renamed the blackhouse. All teh whiteys are gonna go to concentration camps and learn how to rap-battle if they aren't already wiggas. I was worried about my old buddy ComeShot, but he should be fine. Not only would he avoid concentration camp by showing Obama the Flyff rap music-vid he made... he'd get a record deal too.

[hazelmurphy]

Originally Posted by Zodia

i don't think polls matter. Bush lost in everything, but the poll ON THE FOX MEDIA said he won, so he did, and nobody said anything. He owns fox.


Anyway, when my boy obama gets to the whitehouse, he's gonna have it repainted and renamed the blackhouse. All teh whiteys are gonna go to concentration camps and learn how to rap-battle if they aren't already wiggas. I was worried about my old buddy ComeShot, but he should be fine. Not only would he avoid concentration camp by showing Obama the Flyff rap music-vid he made... he'd get a record deal too.

lol?

[Tor]

I'll agree, I dont think polls matter all that much either. A ton of people try forecast things.

Recently I have found myself browsing the net looking at blogs, news network sites about each of the candidate. Ofcourse I look more at those pro Hillary sites, but I do go to pro Obama sites to see what they have to say.

Base on what I read/study, if Obama wins, I don't think he will win the Presidency. Because there are some really hardcore Hillary fans out there. Also, the Mccain camp is gonna use the reverend Wright deal, as well as some of the hypocrisy that Obama has been caught spilling.

For example if hillary was caught saying "my grandma was a typical black person" you know there be a hell of a firestorm.

The revren wright deal, i think will end for him against Maccain. They are gonna run that ad all day long. They are gonna quote him saying "I never heard those remarks" and then in the "race speech" he goes and say "yea I did hear those remarks" I'm not saying that wright was spewing unpatriotic speeches in all the 20 years that Obama went to church there. It could be a costly mistake for him and I definitely see the republicans bring it up over and over again.

Also I have noticed that as the time goes on, more and more websites are picking up ways to say "stuff" about barrack. I know the polls now say Obama has a 3% lead (gallup) but back in on march 20th, Clinton was in the lead by 3%. Both democrats are losing to Mccain though.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Really though, a bunch of little things IMO are plaguing Obama. Like for example gaywired.com just pick up a story on another of obama's pastor. This was also blogged about at perezhilton.com which is getting like 50,000-100,000 visitors a day.

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18614

And the story of him saying he doesn't want his daughter to be "...punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNv-GD4Y48 I know he said that wrong but to some people you know they are gonna get pissed off by saying, he comparing babies as punishment and a STD.

The longer this thing goes on, the worst it's gonna get for Obama IMO. Because more and more people are gonna keep scrutinizing him.

[bhamlaxy]

Base on what I read/study, if Obama wins, I don't think he will win the Presidency. Because there are some really hardcore Hillary fans out there.

Just as there are the "Obamicans" who are hardcore for Obama. Either way, the infighting between Obama and Clinton will probably affect the parties ability to "get out the vote" come November. But probably it would hurt Clinton more, since Obama is the one who is bringing in people who wouldn't be voting otherwise. When he is out, these people caught up in the "Obama movement" go back to being apathetic to politics.

Also, the Mccain camp is gonna use the reverend Wright deal, as well as some of the hypocrisy that Obama has been caught spilling.

Why would the reverend wright deal hurt Obama more during a presidential election? He's explained himself fully, we all understand exactly where he is coming from, and it has had no effect on his poll numbers. This is the only real plus side to this drawn out campaign- it battle tests the candidates. While the reverend wright arguments could have been dropped weeks before the November election, instead he has already responded to it, and it has gone away.

McCain has also said a few stupid things that can be used against him, like the fact that he didn't know if condoms stopped HIV. And additionally McCain hinges much of his campaign on Iraq. Check the news, shit is flaring up again.

The revren wright deal, i think will end for him against Maccain. They are gonna run that ad all day long. They are gonna quote him saying "I never heard those remarks" and then in the "race speech" he goes and say "yea I did hear those remarks" I'm not saying that wright was spewing unpatriotic speeches in all the 20 years that Obama went to church there. It could be a costly mistake for him and I definitely see the republicans bring it up over and over again.

Your argument is just flat out empirically denied. This has all happened before, and the voters don't care. His race speech answers everything. If this incident were such a big bad deal, then Obamas poll numbers would be tumbling. And that simply isn't the case.

All the other little things you posted are just irrelevant to the big issues at hand. Like I said above, McCain acted like a mentally retarded 2 year old when asked questions about condom use and STD's. What really matters is Iraq. Violence is flaring up now, and will probably only continue to worsen. As every day passes by, staying in Iraq starts to look more and more bleak.

Seriously, do you really think voters will say "Well I disagree with the deaths of thousands of American troops in an unjust war that's causing the world to hate our guts and breeds terrorism, but Obama's old pastor was racist! Fuck the troops, I'm voting for McCain!"

The longer this thing goes on, the worst it's gonna get for Obama IMO. Because more and more people are gonna keep scrutinizing him.

In the end, both candidates will be scrutinized. Just wait for the liberal media war machine to get to work on McCain. The republicans already have the cards stacked against them with the nasty war and Bush. Once this democrat mess is figured out, they can start going for the true prize.

[Tor]

Just as there are the "Obamicans" who are hardcore for Obama. Either way, the infighting between Obama and Clinton will probably affect the parties ability to "get out the vote" come November. But probably it would hurt Clinton more, since Obama is the one who is bringing in people who wouldn't be voting otherwise. When he is out, these people caught up in the "Obama movement" go back to being apathetic to politics.

Since you're using these polls as way to justify your reason. Is it not true that more Clinton supporters will support Maccain according to Gallup?

What proof do you have that, they will go back to being apathetic ? The media have covered them so much, that you don't think it had has some type of impact on everyone?

Why would the reverend wright deal hurt Obama more during a presidential election? He's explained himself fully...

Yea and what happened? He ended calling his grandmother a "typical white person" and ending up being a hypocrite about it. As some news network have reported, stuff like this will end up hurting him. Even when he didn't wear a Pin or put his hand to his heart during the National Anthem. Sorry, it's not irreverent as you say. It'll end up hurting him.

Ya, all the stuff that Clinton has said will hurt her as well, same goes for Mccain, but to say that it doesn't matter anymore, just because he made a speech, has no facts behind it. Not everyone thinks his "race" speech answered everything.

[bhamlaxy]

Since you're using these polls as way to justify your reason. Is it not true that more Clinton supporters will support Maccain according to Gallup?

First, it also says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Obama. So there is only a net difference of 9% for Clinton.

Also, I find these polls just totally based on the current situation. Of course a bunch of angry Clinton supporters are going to be "waaah we hate Obama, we will go to McCain!" But when the day is done, after they stop crying about Obama winning, they will remember that they still want to get out of Iraq, they still want universal health care, and they still want advancements when it comes to the environment.

Next, if this were true, then Obama wouldn't be closer to McCain right now. I'm going to use pollster.com, which creates a graph using all polls, creates a line of best fit, and a statistical average of their current levels of support.

Clinton Vs. McCain
Clinton- 43.7%
McCain- 47.6%

Obama Vs. McCain
Obama- 43.5%
McCain- 46.5%

So in this combination of polls, it shows Obama behind by 3% and Clinton behind by 3.9%. This would not be true if "28% of clinton voters were going to jump ship and go to McCain". I have a statistical average of nearly every poll on the issue, you just have one.

And this one poll, I'll argue, is an attempt to increase the perception that "Obama can't win". Most Clinton supporters are older, more experienced in politics, and they realize that every vote for "Would pick McCain over Obama" is going to create the perception that their only chance is Hillary. Most Obama supporters are younger, not as experienced in politics, and more ingrained into the "movement" of Obama's campaign.

Seriously, I just don't see how a quarter of the democratic party is going to vote republican when it makes no logical sense, and every other poll proves it is wrong.

What proof do you have that, they will go back to being apathetic ? The media have covered them so much, that you don't think it had has some type of impact on everyone?

So much of his support comes from the "Obamican revolution". If he were to lose, people would they be furious that some stupid bureaucracy overruled the will of the people and crushed the first real chance a black man had. It may not be a huge effect, but it will certainly be harder for the dems to get black voters to come out in November if Clinton "steals" the nomination.

Yea and what happened? He ended calling his grandmother a "typical white person" and ending up being a hypocrite about it. As some news network have reported, stuff like this will end up hurting him. Even when he didn't wear a Pin or put his hand to his heart during the National Anthem. Sorry, it's not irreverent as you say. It'll end up hurting him.

He explained that just like your creepy old uncle who says racist stuff sometimes, you ignore it (or something like that).

Again, all of your arguments about how he will be hurt are just flat out false. Everyone knows he didn't put his hand on his heart during the anthem, he doesn't wear a pin, and had a racist pastor. Why would, come November, all of a sudden go "wow we don't like Obama! He is a racist anti-american asshole!" These bombs have already been dropped on Obama, with little to no effect on his polls and voter turnout. If they were such a big deal, he wouldn't be winning right now.

Not everyone thinks his "race" speech answered everything.

Many do, and the others don't seem to care. His numbers are increasing, he is continuing to win, and he may even take Pennsylvania. If it were such a damning speech, why isn't he a fish out of water right now?

[Tor]

Posting all these polls just proves the inaccuracy in them, esepcially the one that you posted earlier that had Obama in lead, when every other major poll company out there still has him losing.

Each of the polls are different ofcourse, since they have their own formulas, and I was quoting Gallup because it's widely known as one of the most trusted poll companies out there.

Anyways I don't believe in the legitimacy of polls until the results are finally in. You can look at Texas, where they had Clinton losing by according to some polls 15%.

PA could be like Texas and so might NC. Do I think that it will go to NC? Yea I do.

So much of his support comes from the "Obamican revolution". If he were to lose, people would they be furious that some stupid bureaucracy overruled the will of the people and crushed the first real chance a black man had. It may not be a huge effect, but it will certainly be harder for the dems to get black voters to come out in November if Clinton "steals" the nomination.

I'm sorry but Clinton didn't "steal" anything. Super delegates are savy political poll who have a vast pool of knowledge on each of the the topics. They done and understand their homework on the situation. Yea it will be shame that in the end, if it comes down to Super Delegates that many people are gonna see this as a racial injustice. I'm not saying that they will vote for Clinton. It's all a matter of opinion here, but the fact is, these super delegates are there because they are more knowledgeable about politics than the average person. Only like 50 super delegates separate the two anyways, so it can go either way right now.

Why would, come November, all of a sudden go "wow we don't like Obama! He is a racist anti-american asshole!"

Why wouldn't they. Why don't you think, the republicans won't use that against him? Your reasoning is because...it's already been said? You don't think they won't run an ad that reminds everyone of it?

He explained what? That my uncle is a racist? The fact remains, that he called his grandmother a typical white person. Just as the fact remians that Clinton lied about Bosnia.

Many do, and the others don't seem to care. His numbers are increasing, he is continuing to win, and he may even take Pennsylvania. If it were such a damning speech, why isn't he a fish out of water right now?

Others do care. Youtube videos floating around everyday. To say no one cares with no facts other than personal opinions is wrong. CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, Democrates, Republicans are still talking about it. If they truly didn't care they wouldn't talk about it.

I think the votes should go on. When someone outright beats someone then that person wins.

[bhamlaxy]

Posting all these polls just proves the inaccuracy in them, esepcially the one that you posted earlier that had Obama in lead, when every other major poll company out there still has him losing.

Winning, losing, He was 26% behind Clinton weeks ago, and now polls are saying he is right on her tail, or even winning! We all know polls aren't pinpoint accurate, but it is very easy to see the trend.

And remember, the poll I posted was the most accurate when it came to some of the bigger primaries (Ohio, Texas) and a few other low key primaries.

Each of the polls are different ofcourse, since they have their own formulas, and I was quoting Gallup because it's widely known as one of the most trusted poll companies out there.

The poll I posted before was more accurate on the big primaries. And also I reference the poll average on pollster.com a couple of times. It averages out all the big polls, including gallup, to provide a statistically superior result.

Anyways I don't believe in the legitimacy of polls until the results are finally in. You can look at Texas, where they had Clinton losing by according to some polls 15%.

The poll I referenced was not even close to that wrong. They correctly predicted the winner, and missed each candidate only by 1-2%.

PA could be like Texas and so might NC. Do I think that it will go to NC? Yea I do.

Well whatever poll you reference, Obama has turned the 26% deficit into a single digit difference. And again, all these don't matter. Clinton probably won't score huge victories, meaning she picks up negligable amounts of delegates, and is still losing going into the convention.

I'm sorry but Clinton didn't "steal" anything. Super delegates are savy political poll who have a vast pool of knowledge on each of the the topics. They done and understand their homework on the situation. Yea it will be shame that in the end, if it comes down to Super Delegates that many people are gonna see this as a racial injustice. I'm not saying that they will vote for Clinton. It's all a matter of opinion here, but the fact is, these super delegates are there because they are more knowledgeable about politics than the average person. Only like 50 super delegates separate the two anyways, so it can go either way right now.

I know, I know. That's why I put steal in quotation marks. It will be perceived as being stolen, angering a standard cornerstone for democratic support, African Americans. The function of superdelegates is also not clear cut. Some, like Nancy Pelosi, think they shouldn't violate the will of the people. Many argue that they are only to use their influence in extreme situations. These would include something like a day before the convention, a huge prostitution story or something along those lines breaks, and they need to quickly act. Many believe that it is only in these extreme cases where it is a question of life or death for the election that superdelegates should dramatically shift away from the people. Others argue that they should pick who they think is the best. Regardless, there is still the perception of the nomination being "stolen".

Why wouldn't they. Why don't you think, the republicans won't use that against him? Your reasoning is because...it's already been said? You don't think they won't run an ad that reminds everyone of it?

It is common sense. If these attacks aren't damaging him in the polls right now, why would they in the future? There is absolutely no logical reason that all of a sudden, a majority of voters are going to react extremely differently to these negative attacks. Obama was attacked by these things, and it didn't affect him. In the future, these attacks may be used again, and once again, they will have little effect on him. Everyone knows all the attack stuff that has been run on him, and as you can see in the polls, most voters care about the bigger issues.

Yes, my reasoning is that because it has already been used, with little effect, this proves that empirically, it just isn't an issue. If I keep telling you VOTE FOR OBAMA and you don't react to it, will you one day out of no where go OMG I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA. Of course not. It didn't work in the first place, there is no reason why it would work to any greater effect in the future.

He explained what? That my uncle is a racist? The fact remains, that he called his grandmother a typical white person. Just as the fact remians that Clinton lied about Bosnia.

The fact remains that no one cares about it, as directly proven by the polls and results in recent primaries.

Like I explained before, a majority of democratic voters are not going to say "Well I do think that the death of thousands of US soldiers in an unjust war that breeds terrorism is wrong, but Obama did make a racially awkward statement. Fuck the troops! Lets stay in Iraq for 100 years!"

No. Not going to happen.

Others do care. Youtube videos floating around everyday. To say no one cares with no facts other than personal opinions is wrong. CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, Democrates, Republicans are still talking about it. If they truly didn't care they wouldn't talk about it.

I think the votes should go on. When someone outright beats someone then that person wins.

Youtube videos and coverage does NOT directly equate to voters evaluating it in their decision. His numbers have gone up since the issue, therefore it doesn't seem to be affecting voters in any negative way. If you do want to argue that the negative coverage is affecting voters, then the only possibility is that it is helping him. I contend that these dumb attacks are having no effect. In this election, people care more about the lives of troops, national security, health care etc.

[meimei]

I want to add, most polls are accurate- some polls may be flawed in the way they approached obtaining the information, but if they are randomly phoning people from across the US, it is usually a 3% margin of error.

You have to remember though, that the reason polls might be wrong is because people change. It's not the polls. For example, in NH, where Obama was leading by double digits in the polls, people switched over to Clinton at the last minute- a lot of people were not 100% pro-Obama or Hilary, so when they provide their opinions to the polls, their decision might not be set in stone.

The day before the NH primaries, Clinton may have done something to provoke the voters to vote for her. So, while the polls were right about the people's opinion at the moment of data collection, on the day of, people may have changed their minds.

That doesn't mean that the polls are wrong, though. They usually give an accurate prediction- and each case is different. If there is an event which will change people's minds, then polls might be a little off. In general, though, they're correct- as people have mentioned in other threads before, there are a lot of people who professionally do these predictions, and a lot of the time, the polls are right.

[bhamlaxy]

Did anyone see Clinton on Leno? I just read about it in the new york times. Here's an excerpt.

“I was worried I wasn’t going to make it,” she said as she walked onto the set (to the theme from “Rocky”). “I was pinned down by sniper fire at the Burbank airport.”

I actually think thats pretty funny.

Although her response to the Bosnia thing was as always, retarded:
"She dismissed the controversy over her remarks and said, “I obviously just had a lapse and here I am safe and sound and proud of all our great accomplishments.”

I think its probably going to help her with some positive and humorous coverage.

[RockLee]

Originally Posted by Tor

Since you're using these polls as way to justify your reason. Is it not true that more Clinton supporters will support Maccain according to Gallup?

What proof do you have that, they will go back to being apathetic ? The media have covered them so much, that you don't think it had has some type of impact on everyone?



Yea and what happened? He ended calling his grandmother a "typical white person" and ending up being a hypocrite about it. As some news network have reported, stuff like this will end up hurting him. Even when he didn't wear a Pin or put his hand to his heart during the National Anthem. Sorry, it's not irreverent as you say. It'll end up hurting him.

Ya, all the stuff that Clinton has said will hurt her as well, same goes for Mccain, but to say that it doesn't matter anymore, just because he made a speech, has no facts behind it. Not everyone thinks his "race" speech answered everything.

during sports events i put my hands behind my fuckning back during the national anthem does that mean im not patriotic? stupid comments and thoughts like that are pretty ignorant, i guess if i have just one hand one the wheel and other changing radio station im not a safe or good driver then....

I would vote for Obama and i hope he wins. I live in ohio Hilairy Caimpagned or w/e in i believe Akron (Ack-Rin) Ohio and talked about fighting or going against some big company that she had Voted for 3 times as a senator because that is what the people wanted to hear. I understand some times they try to use different words to sound more appealing or sensitive or w/e but to me she seems like she is just trying to get votes. gt2 byez ZOMG