Butbutbut...um...

got nothin.

As I said in the other thread on this, I REALLY hope Zogby is right this time.

according to this poll, (new window) they're tied nationwide...

bob Barr coming through!

real shaman [TotalFark] Quote 2008-07-12 09:36:28 PM
according to this poll, (new window) they're tied nationwide...

Never trust one poll.

The polling average has shown Obama with a 5-7 point lead for the last few months.

I would like to see Bob Barr in the debates, I hope he polls above 10% so we can see that happen. It won't happen with McKinney, or Chuck Baldwin, although that would be cool too.

Bill Frist:Never trust one poll.

Or national polls. Obama's lead becomes pretty damn significant when you analyze it state by state.

I directly equate Obama's lead with the intelligence level of the united states.

The greater margin Obama leads by, the greater our national intelligence.

We still want those $50 an hour jobs picking lettuce McCain. (new window)

Because People in power are Stupid

Sweet Arizona tag.

The "Nader Effect," at least in 2000, is quite flawed as a concept and I don't want to see Bob Barr judged by that standard, in AZ or elsewhere. Way more registered members of the Democratic Party voted for George Bush, in FL and elsewhere, than voted for Ralph Nader. By the same token, before Bob Barr is seen as a spoiler, the question should be asked "How many registered members of the Republican Party are voting for Sen. Obama?" The Obamacans and Obamacons would seem to be the real danger for Sen. McCain, not Bob Barr. The Barr of today is certainly not the Bob Barr that led the Clinton impeachment hearings, so I doubt that the authoritarian reactionary wing of the GOP is going to vote for Barr. (new window)

Bill Frist:real shaman [TotalFark] Quote 2008-07-12 09:36:28 PM
according to this poll, (new window) they're tied nationwide...

Never trust one poll.

The polling average has shown Obama with a 5-7 point lead for the last few months.

Beyond that, these polls don't reflect "It's the Steelers when I'm in Pittsburgh"/"Nation of whiners," they happened too late in the week. Wait until next week's numbers.

Yeah, not gonna happen. When was the last time a sitting senator or governor lost the state they are from? It may have happened, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Even McGovern won his home state.

DamnYankees:When was the last time a sitting senator or governor lost the state they are from?

Speaking as a former Sun Devil, I must say though--there has been for many years a virulent anti-McCain contingent of the GOP there. Wanting a recall effort and the like. Politics in AZ and NV just aren't like the rest of the country. The State Legislature and the Executive Branch, both dominated by Republicans, repealed the state's sodomy laws without Judicial intervention in the late 1990s. The top four Executive branch office in AZ at the time were all GOP Women, and Libertarian types to boot. Bob Barr is going to tap into a significant sector of the AZ electorate. It may not be enough to matter in the Federal election, but he may get enough to surge him into the debates beforehand.

Somacandra:Speaking as a former Sun Devil, I must say though--there has been for many years a virulent anti-McCain contingent of the GOP there. Wanting a recall effort and the like. Politics in AZ and NV just aren't like the rest of the country. The State Legislature and the Executive Branch, both dominated by Republicans, repealed the state's sodomy laws without Judicial intervention in the late 1990s. The top four Executive branch office in AZ at the time were all GOP Women, and Libertarian types to boot. Bob Barr is going to tap into a significant sector of the AZ electorate. It may not be enough to matter in the Federal election, but he may get enough to surge him into the debates beforehand.

Good insight. I guess its possible that Obama could steal AZ, but I don't think it matters. It's sort of like Obama winning Georgia or South Carolina - it would be cool if he does it, but it means he would have already won. Any situation where Obama does so well nationally that he wins AZ or SC or GA means he'll win the election without those states. If that makes any sense.

DamnYankees:Yeah, not gonna happen. When was the last time a sitting senator or governor lost the state they are from? It may have happened, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Even McGovern won his home state.

In 1972 McGovern lost his home state (South Dakota) and won Mass and Washington D.C. Electoral votes were 520 for Nixon and 17 for McGovern.

Link (new window)

No he doesn't. McCainDemocrat will be along shortly to tell you why.

/unless he's traveling

DamnYankees:Yeah, not gonna happen. When was the last time a sitting senator or governor lost the state they are from? It may have happened, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Even McGovern won his home state.

Well, a sitting VP lost his home state in 2000. It's possible, if not probable.

volsung3:DamnYankees:Yeah, not gonna happen. When was the last time a sitting senator or governor lost the state they are from? It may have happened, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Even McGovern won his home state.

In 1972 McGovern lost his home state (South Dakota) and won Mass and Washington D.C. Electoral votes were 520 for Nixon and 17 for McGovern.

Link (new window)

Thanks for the correction. I always confuse Mondale with McGovern.

Third Day Mark:No he doesn't. McCainDemocrat will be along shortly to tell you why.

/unless he's traveling

Or just make some shiat up.

robsul82:Well, a sitting VP lost his home state in 2000. It's possible, if not probable.

Yeah, that's why I said Senator of Governor. A VP or President's home state advantage isn't as large, I think, because they are less associated with that state and more with the nation as a whole.

Zogby has Obama winning Arkansas.

I really wish there were penalties for deceiving people with polls, because if there were, then Zogby would get 25 to life. Zogby polls are worthless.

1 minute 15 seconds response time. Damn, he's getting good.

/shameless hotlink

I don't think it'll happen. Too many old people here, and Arizona went to Clinton by a significant margin, so there's probably a few bitter democrats around.

People get AZ confused; it's a lot more Democratic than people think. It doesn't elect a lot of Democrats to national office because of very effective political gerrymandering by the Republicans. But it has a female Democratic governor on her second term. So an Obama win there would not be a shocker.

the only Democrat to win Arizona since Truman was Bill Clinton.

McCain won a majority of Democrats in 2004, and he'll win a significant percentage of them this year.

worlddan:So an Obama win there would not be a shocker.

A Presidential nominee losing his home state is always a shocker. Not unique, but unexpected.

worlddan:People get AZ confused; it's a lot more Democratic than people think.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but I wonder how you to that conclusion. My own experience is markedly different. My father's parents-in-law live there, so I have occasion to visit semi-frequently. I'm always struck by the racism and extreme simple-minded conservatism that inhabits that place and its surrounds. I don't think I've met a single liberal there during my time. Even my father has become less liberal since moving there.

But that's just my own experience, so maybe you have additional information? I really am curious, it would be nice to be wrong in this instance.

Speaking as a former Sun Devil...

You are still a Sun Devil.





GO DEVILS!!!

/G08AMA!

Somacandra:The "Nader Effect," at least in 2000, is quite flawed as a concept and I don't want to see Bob Barr judged by that standard, in AZ or elsewhere.

I really don't think you need that much hard evidence to tout this. Third party voters are not necessarily previous Democratic or Republican voters. Even if they are, they're not necessarily "in the bag" votes you can count on.

I think if Obama can go toe-to-toe with McCain on immigration, he's got a shot at taking it. It's a big concern there, if my Arizonian (Arizonite? I don't know) family is any measure of it.

Does anyone now when the next Obama/McCain debate is?

DamnYankees:

Didn't Al Gore lose Tennessee in 2000?

And on a related note, I think Edwards failed to carry North Carolina for Kerry.

GoRedSoxGo:I think if Obama can go toe-to-toe with McCain on immigration, he's got a shot at taking it. It's a big concern there, if my Arizonian (Arizonite? I don't know) family is any measure of it.

Not gonna happen. Arizona is not worth Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan combined.

Obamapocalypse? meh. too long.
Let me introduce:

BARACKALYPSE^TM

Yeah, Obama can't take on McCain on immigration without either taking a stance that costs him the rust belt or veering hard to the right and alienating more of his base.

McCain is a mainstream politician on immigration. He reached across party lines and worked with Ted Kennedy.

doyner:GoRedSoxGo:I think if Obama can go toe-to-toe with McCain on immigration, he's got a shot at taking it. It's a big concern there, if my Arizonian (Arizonite? I don't know) family is any measure of it.

Not gonna happen. Arizona is not worth Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan combined.

Are you talking about the immigration issue or about the dollars they'd need to move to Arizona and out of the states you listed? (Or both?)

McCainDemocrat:Yeah, Obama can't take on McCain on immigration without either taking a stance that costs him the rust belt or veering hard to the right and alienating more of his base.

McCain is a mainstream politician on immigration. He reached across party lines and worked with Ted Kennedy.

Though I agree with McCain's immigration stance, you call his position "mainstream", yet don't think it is at all why conservatives are having a hard time supporting him?

/yes, I know he's a troll. oddly enough, he's the only anti-Obama person at least making a half-assed sales pitch for McCain.

The only poll that counts (hopefully) is the one on Nov 4th. Until then, people will be bombarded with poll results taken by people and organizations that have an interest in slanting things one way or the other, and the poll results will show their position as the favorite one.

Republican polls will show things either already going their way or that the tide is moving in that direction. Not surprisingly, Democratic polls will show the same type of thing (if 180 degree opposite of the Republican polls) going for them. Both parties employ people to 'spin' the results of polls they don't outright control.

I have no idea how 'neutral' organizations such as Gallup, ABC, Time, Newsweek etc, really are. And I question whether this service they provide really helps Americans choose the best people for elected office. This gets down to what we want, I guess, from our leaders. Do we want someone to read the latest poll and do whatever it says he should do or do you want someone who's willing to do something unpopular if they think it will be better in the long run?

I am not going to get into an argument whether one poll or group releasing a poll is accurate while another is slanted. People will claim that any poll which disagrees with their political leanings is slanted, while a poll which agrees with their positions is fair and non-biased. And if a few polls are really accurate, how do you pick them from the hundreds being released each week? And if a poll result is accurate, do you want to be a lemming and just follow along with the herd?

/Is a group of Lemmings a herd?

As an Arizonan, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama take this state. Immigration is a huge issue here and McCain (and our other Senator, Jon Kyl (R)) were two of the biggest backers of that package Congress tried to force through. That lost them a lot of clout with GOPers (not enough to vote for B Hussein but enough to keep them home on election day). The voting hispanics here ain't voting for someone who won't give them free health care (NOTE: they don't want illegals to be citizens, they just want to see them left alone. Being an illegal in an unenforced area is a better deal than being a citizen.) but I don't know if they'll be able to outnumber the old white population we have. It really will be a matter of who shows to the polls on election day.

/We do have about six black people but they are felons so no black vote in AZ.
//If Juan McCain loses the state and the election, I am hoping someone runs decent for his Senate seat and keeps referring to his loss in the ads.

McCainDemocrat:Yeah, Obama can't take on McCain on immigration without either taking a stance that costs him the rust belt or veering hard to the right and alienating more of his base.

McCain is a mainstream politician on immigration. He reached across party lines and worked with Ted Kennedy.

I'm gonna agree with you on this one, Obama has nothing to gain campaigning on immigration, it's a distraction from a myriad of issues that favor him instead.

BigDamn:Obamapocalypse? meh. too long.
Let me introduce:

BARACKALYPSE^TM

That's an Obamanation!

Somacandra:...so I doubt that the authoritarian reactionary wing of the GOP is going to vote for Barr. (new window)

That's obvious. What people have been suggesting is that the Libertarian party under New Barr will soak up the fiscal conservative votes that might have otherwise gone to Not-so-mavericky McCain. There's a good section of the population that is skeptical about the usual Republican promise to shrink government but isn't happy about the fact that Obama would expand it. These people might pull the lever for McCain and hope he's going to flip all his positions back to what they were in 2000, or they could be swayed to Barr who's positions now sound closer to what they want.

I myself am perfectly fine with a much larger government in some ways so I'm going for Obama. Let a competant president take a shot at nationalized healthcare programs to finally give the insurance companies some competition and spur innovation. Increase regulation to keep the corporations opperating at standards worth investing in. Just keep your farking hands off my civil liberties and let the market have some wiggle room to compete against government run social programs and I'm a happy guy. I don't know if Obama will provide that the way I'd like it, but he's moving us in the right direction.

GoRedSoxGo:Are you talking about the immigration issue or about the dollars they'd need to move to Arizona and out of the states you listed? (Or both?)

Immigration issue. "Working class" folks in those states will quite likely turn on Obama if he panders to illegals in order to win AZ.

McCainDemocrat:McCain is a mainstream politician on immigration.

Which means the right is pissed at him on this issue, as they are pissed at Bush. Anything more nuanced than "deport them all! Build a big wall! Durr!" sets the populist right aflame with resentment against what they see in the McCain's and Bushes of the world as a giant globalist conspiracy and/or pandering to the damned Mexicans.

The immigration issue is much, MUCH more dangerous to McCain than it is to Obama or any of the other Democrats. If McCain loses even a relatively small percentage (say 5%) of the hard right (to whom the immigration issue is one of the most important issues out there), it's farking over in the west, and the election is over for him.

Again: if even a small percentage of the anti-immigrant hard right stay home, McCain doesn't have a chance in hell. The immigration issue is absolute poison to the McCain campaign, and they know it.

Pppppoison.

/cabbage patches

doyner:GoRedSoxGo:Are you talking about the immigration issue or about the dollars they'd need to move to Arizona and out of the states you listed? (Or both?)

Immigration issue. "Working class" folks in those states will quite likely turn on Obama if he panders to illegals in order to win AZ.

I agree with you, but I'm talking about tacking towards the center on immigration. Of course, that'll probably rile up his base yet again...

Doyner, illegals can't vote. How in God's name can anything he do be considered pandering if it's a non-voting bloc of people?

doyner:Immigration issue. "Working class" folks in those states will quite likely turn on Obama if he panders to illegals in order to win AZ.

Nah, people who are swayed on the issue already don't trust Obama or any of the other Dems on immigration. And even during the primaries, when Obama was supposedly pandering to the left, he still supported the border fence.

I just don't think we're gonna see much movement in Democratic voters on the immigration issue, the battle lines have already been drawn, and they're pretty static, whereas the issue is an absolute powder keg for the Republicans.

Obama is only carrying 50% in Illinois