New LA Times poll shows Obama with a 12% lead.
Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Not bad for an “unknown” who “flipflopped” on federal funding. But not nearly enough, I say. Voters have to score Obama higher on defense and national security, see through McCain’s hypocrisies. I want a goddam mandate so he can repair the damage faster when he gets in office…
But the campaign hasn’t really started, has it?
I guess 12% WOULD be a mandate. So, gimme a landslide, then.
Registered voters, not Likely voters. Wake me when they use a reliable metric.
“Registered voters, not Likely voters. Wake me when they use a reliable metric.”
You think Likely Voters is going to cause a 12-point swing.
For that matter, what makes you think Likely Voters will got for Obama less than registered voters?
Whatever. If Obama doesn’t win by 60 points*, I’m moving to Canada.
*not counting Diebold error or other shenanigans.
Of course not, but if Newsweek and the LAT had used Likely Voters, they’d have probably gotten the same results as Gallup, Rassmussen, etc have gotten in the past 2 weeks (Obama 3 to 5).
By using Registered Voters (which have historically given Democratics a 4-6 point bump), they can artificially inflate Obama’s lead and try to build the “He’s Unstoppable!” narrative before the general public starts paying attention.
“By using Registered Voters (which have historically given Democratics a 4-6 point bump),”
Democratics?
Anyhoo…
Can you back that up? And given the nature of your claim, I’m going to need to see more than a few polls that gave both numbers for each of the past few election cycles.
Would it still result in such a large bump given the dramatic difference in enthusiasm between the two parties this cycle?
Even a 6-point drop wouldn’t close the gap to the levels you suggest.
“they can artificially inflate Obama’s lead and try to build the ‘He’s Unstoppable!’ narrative before the general public starts paying attention.”
Can you back that up? You’ve implied this is an intentional attempt to change the narrative. Prove it.
[...] “Validating Newsweek?” Oliver Willis’ post title asks, followed by a quick reference to a new LA Times poll that shows Obama surging to a twelve point lead over John McCain. With Bob Barr and Ralph Nader thrown on the ballot, that lead jumps up to the lead that Newsweek gave Obama last week at fifteen points. Is Oliver right? Has Newsweek’s poll been vindicated? [...]
I don’t think he needs to back his suggestion up. If you are going to be writing about this credibly, then it is your responsibility to check if it is, indeed, a liberal media attempt to create an unstoppable narrative going into the summmer.
That said, as a Barr supporter, I am delighted to see the liberals in the media play up Barr as a spoiler.
This will serve our purpose of taking over the Republican Party (if Barr rises to 10%, McCain will have to chose Sanford or some other libertarian as a VP and this person will basically take over the party).
Then the liberals will hate our message of following the Constitution.
But, when we libertarians control the Republican Party, you will never again have to deal with those who want to stop premarital sex and persecute interns just because they liked their boss.
I predict that, when libertarians control the Republicans, races will become tighter against the Democrats…which is how things should be (nobody wants one party rule where there are no alternatives).
You’ve implied this is an intentional attempt to change the narrative. Prove it.
Proved.
Me: “You’ve implied this is an intentional attempt to change the narrative. Prove it.”
SaveFarris: “Proved.”
Laughable.
1.) They are discussing two different polls moving in two different directions. 54% support is barely more than a majority, especially when it is dropping. 12% is a sizable lead, especially when it is growing.
2.) You in now way proved it was intentional. That the polling numbers were fixed to get this outcome.
Of course they were. The headline was written before the poll was taken. (Not literally, but you know what I mean…)
The LAT WANTED to spin their poll as “Obama gains momentum” so they picked a method that reliably inflates numbers for Democratics (and if you look at the crosstabs, they also over-sampled young folk and under-sampled Older folks. What POSSIBLE reason would they have done that?) Then, when the results came in, they oversold them even though just a couple of months earlier, they undersold a poll that had an even LARGER difference rate.
This poll was designed to generate news, not acuractly reflect voter intentions. Mission accomplished.
“I don’t think he needs to back his suggestion up.”
Yes he does. He made a claim, he has to back it up.
“Then the liberals will hate our message of following the Constitution.”
Really? I’d love to see you back this up.
“Of course they were.”
So it was written by SaveFarris! Thus is must be true.
“…so they picked a method that reliably inflates numbers for Democratics…”
Again I say, “Prove it.”
“What POSSIBLE reason would they have done that?”
Because younger voters are more energized than they’ve been in a long time, therefore, there will be more younger voters voting that in recent years.
“This poll was designed to generate news, not acuractly reflect voter intentions.”
Or, your ability to accurately judge reality has been severely impacted by seven years of lies.
You have offered no evidence that even comes close to backing up your claims. Your credibility is zero. There’s no reason to accept your analysis.
But, when we libertarians control the Republican Party, you will never again have to deal with those who want to stop premarital sex and persecute interns just because they liked their boss.
*rubbing hands together demonically*
And tomorrow….THE WORLD WILL BE OURS!!!!!
MWA HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaa!
“*rubbing hands together demonically*
And tomorrow….THE WORLD WILL BE OURS!!!!!”
Without the Religious Right, the Republican party would cease to be a power federally.
CS, I was speaking of the Libertarians’ Pinky and the Brain’s evil plan to take over the world, not the bible-thumpers’ evil plan to take over the country. Sorry if i was not more clearer.
Well, Whadda ya know?
Full Disclosure: Polls mean absolutely d**k until November 5th…
“CS, I was speaking of the Libertarians’ Pinky and the Brain’s evil plan to take over the world, not the bible-thumpers’ evil plan to take over the country. Sorry if i was not more clearer.”
Yes, I got that. But what I’m saying is, if the Libertarians actually took over the Republican party, it would shatter. There’s no way the Religious Right would stick with the Republicans.
SaveFarris: “Well, Whadda ya know?”
Translation: I’ve given up trying to defend my lies, so I’m looking for another poll instead.
Hey SaveFarris, how do you know Gallup isn’t keeping the numbers artificially close to push the, ‘It’s a horse race’ story? At this point, having the race a tie is more likely to be the outlier than Obama having a 12-point lead.
Has anyone here ever been polled? Do you suppose people are honest when someone pulls them away from Grey’s Anatomy with essentially a telemarketer call?
SaveFarris, twice in this thread and also in a few others you’ve used “Democratics”, a variation I haven’t seen elsewhere. I’m curious, are you not aware of the actual name of the party?
“Has anyone here ever been polled?”
Yep. Several times.
“Do you suppose people are honest when someone pulls them away from Grey’s Anatomy with essentially a telemarketer call?”
I always do.
In the 1st post of the thread, farris said:
“Registered voters, not Likely voters. Wake me when they use a reliable metric.”
In a later post, farris said:
“Well, Whadda ya know?”
If one follows the link and reads it, they find this:
“The general-election results are based on combined data from June 22-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,600 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.”
It’s fun when cons discredit their own posts. Makes the load lighter on the rest of us.
EL, Excellent catch! I stand corrected.
Mr. Martin, apparently there’s been some hubub about using the word Democrat. Folks in the Blue State party would prefer people use the word “Democratic”. So in the interest of political unity, I do my best to indulge them at every opportunity.
You’re unifying us all right.
“So in the interest of political unity, I do my best to indulge them at every opportunity.”
So you are nothing more than a troll and should be treated with as much respect as that position demands. I.E. none.
But what I’m saying is, if the Libertarians actually took over the Republican party, it would shatter. There’s no way the Religious Right would stick with the Republicans.
That’s certainly true.
“Do you suppose people are honest when someone pulls them away from Grey’s Anatomy with essentially a telemarketer call?”
I always do.
Yeah, but you’re Canadian, what do you know?
CSS: “Do you suppose people are honest when someone pulls them away from Grey’s Anatomy with essentially a telemarketer call?”
I always do.
Your “I always do” is a little ambiguous. You always do suppose people are honest, or you always do answer honestly yourself? If you meant the former I think you’re giving folks too much credit.
SaveFarris: Folks in the Blue State party would prefer people use the word “Democratic”
Actually, an objection has been raised to Bush and others purposefully referring to it as the “Democrat Party” which is just wrong. That you misunderstood the objection is just, well, typical.
“Your “I always do” is a little ambiguous. You always do suppose people are honest, or you always do answer honestly yourself?”
I always answer honestly.
Thanks for clarifying.
I suspect many do not answer honestly. As someone who doesn’t like leading by following polls, when called I’m usually tempted to give outlandish answers.