pageok
pageok
pageok
Newest Gallup Poll shows McCain insignificantly ahead.--

Yesterday the Gallup Tracking Poll showed Obama ahead by 9 points (49-40). Earlier today (Monday) that dropped to Obama ahead by 8 points (48-40). Both were of registered voters.

Now Gallup/USA Today released a new poll of LIKELY voters, showing a 4 point lead for McCain, his first lead in any major poll since early May.

The switch from registered to likely voters explains most of the difference.

Yet this jumping around does not inspire confidence in Gallup:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.

The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%.

Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.

Results based on the survey of 791 likely voters have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points — so McCain's lead is not outside that range. Results based on the survey of 900 registered voters also have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points.

Gallup editor Frank Newport tells Jill that "registered voters are much more important at the moment," because Election Day is still 100 days away, but that the likely-voter result suggests that it may be possible for McCain to energize Republicans and turn them out this fall.

Note that Obama's lead among even registered voters has dropped precipitously from 9% to 8% to 3% in data from Gallup added to Real Clear Politics since midnight Sunday night. Indeed, both the 8% and the 3% results were for polls taken the same three days surveying apparently different samples of the same population, registered voters — strange but not surprising, given the low response rates for most public opinion polls these days.

Anderson (mail):
I see that Nate Silver puts Gallup pretty far down in his pollster rankings.

Still, the fluctuation's another indication that Obama is not terribly far from McCain, even if McCain is not ahead.
7.28.2008 7:25pm
Kazinski:
I was off the grid for a few days, but last night I saw Brian Williams interview with Obama replayed on CSPAN. It probably was not seen widly, but if it was any indication of the coverage that likely voters have been seeing, it would explain some of the drop.

It wasn't that Obama was that bad, it was just that he looked like a freshman Senator 2/3 of the way through his first term. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
7.28.2008 7:34pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Shows what July polls are worth.
7.28.2008 7:34pm
Steve Lubet (mail):
What are the betting/futures lines on Intrade or Iowa Electronic Markets?
7.28.2008 7:34pm
Don Miller (mail) (www):
Honestly, I find these tracking polls to be a waste of time and confuse people about how the President is actually elected.

The Electoral College is what elects the President. The Electoral System gives enough of a power shift to lower population States that the Popular vote at a national level doesn't mean a thing. Being from a small Rural State, that is good for me. It is the only thing that makes Urbanites like McCain and Obama interested in what happens in Iowa or Idaho at all.

Give me a tracking poll that tries to predict the Electoral College outcome, otherwise we are playing into the ignorance of the masses.
7.28.2008 7:36pm
Sevesteen (mail):
I wonder how much race, racism and the fear of being thought racist is affecting poll accuracy?
7.28.2008 7:50pm
trad and anon:
The Electoral College is what elects the President. The Electoral System gives enough of a power shift to lower population States that the Popular vote at a national level doesn't mean a thing. Being from a small Rural State, that is good for me. It is the only thing that makes Urbanites like McCain and Obama interested in what happens in Iowa or Idaho at all.
That's not quite right. Under the Electoral College system, Iowa attracts interest because it's a "swing state." Eve

Also, the plurality vote winner is an extremely powerful predictor of the Electoral College winner. 2000 was extremely anomalous—the last non-plurality winner was Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
7.28.2008 7:52pm
trad and anon:
That's not quite right. Under the Electoral College system, Iowa attracts interest because it's a "swing state." Eve
Trying that again:

That's not quite right. Under the Electoral College system, Iowa attracts interest because it's a "swing state." Idaho, a safe state, attracts even less interest than it would otherwise. Even Texas, with its enormous rural population, get ignored because Texas is a safe state. Same with California, which also has an enormous rural population despite people thinking it consists only of San Francisco and L.A.
7.28.2008 7:55pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
I'm in a swing state and I have gotten quite a few calls from pollsters. One of the asked me if the fact that Obama was black would make me less likely to vote for him. I responded "the fact that he is a one-world Socialist assures that I will never vote for him." The pollster, like a robot, asked me if Barack Obama's wife would make me more likley to vote for him or less likely. I answered, "he could be married to Jackie Kennedy reincarnate and it wouldn't change the fact I will not vote for him."

The last pollster who called me asked me this: "Does your dissatsfication with Bush make your more inclined to vote for Obama or to vote against McCain." I responded that I did polling while at Arizona State and that question would have gotten me an F.

I wouldn't waste any effort on polls if I were you guys.
7.28.2008 8:07pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):
One thing that Nate Silver has calculated is the odds of an electoral college loss combined with a popular vote plurality win, and what he found is that when the popular vote winner has a margin of more than a couple of points, the odds of an electoral college loss drops to nearly zero. The same post also shows that every point of margin is worth about 25 electoral votes, so it doesn't take more than a few points to rack up a big win. See here.
7.28.2008 8:09pm
Curious Passerby (mail):
Once Obama opens his mouth in the unscripted debates and his McGovernite philosophy gets better known he'll tank.

But, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth we'll hear about the racism of this country. Will Watts burn? Will Hollywood stars move to Europe? Stay tuned!
7.28.2008 8:15pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Shows what July polls are worth.

What Bob from Ohio said. We are talking about polls with relatively small samples taken 4 months out from the election, at a time when not that many people are paying attention. And the variations from day to day, which are probably just random noise or produced by slightly different polling methodologies, are being blown way out of proportion.

Let's let the campaign develop a little bit and then see where we are with the polls in a couple of months.
7.28.2008 8:17pm
Malvolio:
What are the betting/futures lines on Intrade or Iowa Electronic Markets?
Almost 2:1 in favor of the guy with the funny name. All of you sages predicting how he's going to be the next McGovern ought to get over there and turn your brilliance into cash.
7.28.2008 8:32pm
SPO:
I think the electorate is smarter than people think. Barack Obama is a flawed candidate. I mean, really guys, are we going to elect a guy who has said, "White folks' greed running a world in need." Putting aside the nastiness of such a comment--it's also naive. Most of the poverty in the world has absolutely nothing to do with "white folks' greed", but rather the horribleness of particular governments.
7.28.2008 8:58pm
Brian Mac:

Almost 2:1 in favor of the guy with the funny name. All of you sages predicting how he's going to be the next McGovern ought to get over there and turn your brilliance into cash.

It's interesting how little the market has shifted over the summer, whether in response to polls, gaffes, or whatever. Although I guess it's only surprising to political junkies.

I'm still waiting on someone to do a study on the predictive accuracy of futures markets vs. polls as far as elections go, which seems odd to me.
7.28.2008 8:59pm
Brian Mac:

I mean, really guys, are we going to elect a guy who has said, "White folks' greed running a world in need."

I'm guessing you can't provide a reliable cite for that. I'd like to see McCain win, but if it happens, it'll be in spite of the likes of you.
7.28.2008 9:06pm
NaG (mail):
Curious Passerby: "Once Obama opens his mouth in the unscripted debates and his McGovernite philosophy gets better known he'll tank."

You mean like in his many debates for the Democratic primary?

I think Obama will do fine in the debates. His gaffes, if any, will come in less public fora.
7.28.2008 9:28pm
BillW:
"White folks' greed" is from the first sermon Obama heard Rev. Wright preach. Though you can hear Obama read the passage on YouTube; I don't why he's reading it aloud. Books on Tape?
7.28.2008 9:33pm
SPO:
He's reading it aloud because that speech moved him. There's no real spinning this guys.

Brian Mac--perhaps you think that Obama gets a pass on racial issues. I don't. Let's not forget that he called an absolutely vicious black-on-white six-on-one assault where a boy was knocked unconscious and stomped while unconscious a "schoolyard fight" (any bets on what Obama would be calling it if the races were reversed). Or what about his comment that people who reacted to Wright had "untrained ears", as if we are too stupid to understand that a person who calls Natalee Holloway a "white girl who gave it up on vacation" is a bigoted jerk. Or his "typical white person" comment.

Yeah, Brian, you can be holier than thou. But this stuff is what it is. You gonna defend Kwame Kilpatrick's racial issues too?
7.28.2008 9:42pm
Brian Mac:
Yeah, a quick google suggested he referred to the sermon in his book, I'm guessing it's the audio version that's on youtube.
7.28.2008 9:45pm
BillW:
SPO: He's reading it aloud because that speech moved him.

Indeed, so much so that he used the title of that sermon, "The Audacity of Hope", for his own book.
7.28.2008 9:47pm
Brian Mac:
SPO, all I'm going to do is point out that your 'quoting' of Obama was a deliberate distortion of the truth.
7.28.2008 9:47pm
BGates:
You mean like in his many debates for the Democratic primary?
Where we found out he'd meet the President of Iran without preconditions, that Hillary was "likeable...enough", that he'd raise taxes even at the risk of lowering revenue to ensure "fairness"...yes, like those.
7.28.2008 9:51pm
Hoosier:
This result is, of course, string evidence that Obama will win a smashing vitory in November. As is the opposite result.
7.28.2008 9:51pm
Perseus (mail):
Polls taken in July aren't very meaningful when the vast right-wing conspiracy is busy cooking up the next October Surprise.
7.28.2008 9:52pm
SPO:
BillW, so the speech "moved" him? So if Trent Lott said "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever", would he get a pass because he was just quoting a speech that moved him? I don't see how that really makes Obama look good at all. A speech with a nasty implication of white racial guilt, and a naive one at that, "moved" Obama? And that doesn't reflect on him? Ok, got it.
7.28.2008 10:13pm
AntonK (mail):
The definitive opinion piece on the value of polls can be found here.
7.28.2008 10:43pm
Hoosier:
"Polls taken in July aren't very meaningful when the vast right-wing conspiracy is busy cooking up the next October Surprise."

Yeah. That's what's keeping us busy these days. We're just about done with it, too.

I can't tell you much, or it wouldn't be a "suprise." But I CAN say that it involves a really great new sandwich.

Check back in late October for more.
7.28.2008 11:25pm
LM (mail):
Anderson:

I see that Nate Silver puts Gallup pretty far down in his pollster rankings.

Thanks for that link. I worked on the N.Y Times/CBS Poll about 20 years ago(*) and as you can see, we TOTALLY KICK Zogby Interactive and the Columbus Dispatch's ASS!


(*) I was surprised to learn that some people aren't very polite when they're giving you their opinion of being phoned during dinner by someone from The New York Times.
7.29.2008 12:03am
SpenceB:
" Now Gallup/USA Today released a new poll of LIKELY voters, showing a 4 point lead for McCain.... "

____________

No.

The published poll data was unable to conclude which candidate was leading. The opposite conclusion (.. Obama leading) was just as possible from that poll.

The +/- 4% sampling error dictates that the difference in support between McCain/Obama ... absolutely could NOT be scientifically measured by that poll.

The two major candidates are "tied' within the relatively large margin-of-error of these political polls.

So why speculate and agonize over such totally non-existent 'facts'.
7.29.2008 12:12am
SPO:
And, speaking of Obama quotes, let's not forget this risible one:

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".

This is a guy who took 20 years to learn that maybe, just maybe Rev. Wright wasn't such a good guy, but then is going to heal the planet.
7.29.2008 12:23am
LM (mail):
SpenceB,

Every poll has sampling error. Those who understand that factor it into every poll they see. For those who don't, not adjusting for it here doesn't make this poll any less accurate than all the others they misconstrue.
7.29.2008 12:28am
kdonovan:
I suspect that the "Likely Voter" screens used by pollsters are underestimating the Democratic vote this time around as there seem to be quite a few new voters (who usually do not get counted as Likely Voters) who seem motivated to vote for Obama. (In '06 this same phenomenon pushed most of the close races into the Democratic column - it was particularly pronounced in MN and WI where one can register on election day at the polling place. In '04 the Bush people did a good job of pulling in new voters from the exurbs.) Of course it's still early and 3 more months of waffling/moving to the center might discourage these idealistic new voters.
7.29.2008 12:29am
BillW:
SPO: BillW, so the speech "moved" him? So if Trent Lott said "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever", would he get a pass because he was just quoting a speech that moved him? I don't see how that really makes Obama look good at all. A speech with a nasty implication of white racial guilt, and a naive one at that, "moved" Obama? And that doesn't reflect on him? Ok, got it.

That Wright's sermon moved Obama, and inspired him to join Trinity United, does reflect on Obama's sensibilities and judgment — and not in a good way, in my opinion.

Likewise, Lott's bizarre endorsement of then-Democrat Thurmond's pro-segregationist position reflected very badly on Lott.
7.29.2008 3:17am
The General:
maybe if the media start focusing on the real issues, like Obama's lack of qualifications or competence to be president, he won't look so good even in these meaningless polls. Of course, that won't happen because they're all in the tank for the socialist.
7.29.2008 3:37am
Crafty Hunter (www):
Obama is a Marxist. That's the long and short of it, and why he will likely lose the election. It has very little to do with residual racism. He's not Walter Williams, and most of us bitter gun owners and other decent Americans detest Marxists, now matter how the mass media may pump them up.
7.29.2008 5:40am
ATM (mail):
While maybe Likely voter filters underestimated the number of D voters turning out in the '06 Congressional Races, the fact that the Congressional approval is the lowest it has ever been, and that Iraq is no longer the primary concern of voters makes that fact irrelevent around this time. Sooner or later voters are going to figure out the Democrats aren't interested in doing things that will boost the economy, like developing US hydrocarbon fuel resources. McCain needs to run against the Democrat controlled Congress, particularly on energy issues.
7.29.2008 6:20am
LM (mail):
Crafty Hunter:

Obama is a Marxist. That's the long and short of it, and why he will likely lose the election.

Do you really care so little about being taken seriously that you blow all your credibility on the first sentence?

He's not Walter Williams, and most of us bitter gun owners and other decent Americans detest Marxists,

So if Obama wins, will it be because you were wrong about him or about the bitter gun-owning decent Americans? Or might you be underestimating the number of us pleasantly gun-hating indecent Americans?

now matter how the mass media may pump them up.

You mean the mass media that's been easier on McCain than on Obama?
7.29.2008 8:30am
FantasiaWHT:
I'm curious, are there actually any studies out there that test the accuracy of election polls?

On average, what percentage of polls are within their own margin of error the day before the election?

What's the average size of the error, plus or minus, the day before the election?

Are the polls more likely to err on the side of the democrat or republican candidate, the day before the election?

How do these numbers change as we look at polls from one week out, one month out, etc.?

Do the numbers change if the candidates are two different races?

Is this information out there anywhere? I'd love to see it. Anecdotally, the polls from the last season of primaries seemed to be nearly worthless. I see a lot of people here (and everywhere, really) saying that polls four months out are worthless. Are they right? Is their implicit belief that polls closer to the election more worthwhile correct?
7.29.2008 9:51am
rarango (mail):
Another slow August day on VC. When you need traffic talk about polling data! Of course, I always rise to the bait, as do lots of other none too busy at the office folks. July popular poll is meaningless as several others have noted; Swing state voting by likely voters is what moves the Electoral College--when those polls start coming out, then we can be much more informed.
7.29.2008 9:53am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
atm:

Congressional approval is the lowest it has ever been


There are signs that this is because the Ds in congress are behaving too much like Rs (and not the reverse). Here's one indication: generic congressional polls show D ahead by a wide margin. Here's another indication: approval of congress is higher among Rs than among Ds (I mean Rs and Ds who are being polled).

McCain needs to run against the Democrat controlled Congress


Given what I just said, this is not likely to help him much (aside from possibly energizing his very un-energetic base). Unless he runs to the left of "the Democrat controlled Congress," which of course is not something he is going to do.
7.29.2008 10:33am
JosephSlater (mail):
What rarango just said.
7.29.2008 10:37am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"Another slow August day on VC"

Did you mean 'august' with a small 'a?'

Sorry, I don't really mean to pick on you. I just couldn't not use the joke.
7.29.2008 10:38am
Jim at FSU (mail):

I think Obama will do fine in the debates. His gaffes, if any, will come in less public fora.


Did you watch the debate he had with Hillary? He repeatedly choked and sputtered, made horribly damaging admissions and let Hillary score points off him constantly. He strikes me as the kind of guy who is fantastic in a moot court kind of setting where someone is throwing cues at you to deliver rehearsed points, but if you start throwing curve balls at him, he immediately loses his place. Maybe he'll improve with practice, but I'm doubtful. I think this is something fundamental, like W's inability to string together coherent sentences.

And honestly, W did better versus Gore. I would be at least concerned if I were an Obama person. I personally predict that a few debates or town halls have the potential to kill Obama's campaign, kind of like how Stockdale killed Perot's chances when he got routed by Quayle in a debate. Everyone in my family immediately knew it was over for Perot at that point in 92.
7.29.2008 10:44am
Michael B (mail):
Obama is easily in George McGovern territory in terms of his Leftist sensibilities. In some ways he is more Carteresque, but he is arguably the most decidedly Leftist candidate the Democratic party has forwarded. McGovern could be argued to be further left, but it's a debateable issue.

(And both McGovern and Obama are very decent individuals, but this is about national and international policies, not family and friends.)
7.29.2008 10:52am
rarango (mail):
JukeBoxGrad--either one seem appropriate--especially if it were really August and not July!
7.29.2008 10:52am
Sarcastro (www):
rarango stole my comment! July poles are super important. ood thing there's a new one every day!
7.29.2008 10:58am
David M. Nieporent (www):
You mean the mass media that's been easier on McCain than on Obama?
Where is this alleged study? It doesn't appear to exist anywhere except in a reference in an LA Times story. The CMPA's website has no mention of it.
7.29.2008 11:48am
mariner (mail):
July poles are super important.

Even more important than maypoles?
7.29.2008 12:05pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"The CMPA's website has no mention of it."

Read this.
7.29.2008 1:10pm
The Ace (mail):
You mean the mass media that's been easier on McCain than on Obama?

I love that you keep posting a link to this as if it is now to be accepted as verifiable fact.

And no, linking to examples of conservatives approving of previous studies doesn't make this one true.
7.29.2008 1:34pm
The Ace (mail):
"The CMPA's website has no mention of it."

Read this.


Um, so where is the study again?
7.29.2008 1:35pm
The Ace (mail):
From the other thread:

Since every indication is that's exactly what you were responding to, I answered your question by speculating that you assume the study was biased. Which is why I linked to several examples (.pdf, .pdf, .pdf) of what's made the organization that performed the study a favorite of conservatives

Um, and then what? Linking to examples of conservatives approving of previous studies doesn't make this one true.
7.29.2008 1:37pm
The Ace (mail):
Hysterically false claim from the other thread:
jukeboxgrad:
Dubya has added more to our debt than all prior presidents, combined

Um, not so much:


09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48


You do realize what those numbers mean, right?
7.29.2008 1:44pm
The Ace (mail):
Another incoherent whopper from jukeboxgrad:

Nice job trying to slide the goalposts around. Cheney and the above 'liberal' reporters are not talking about how "Republican" [sic] won a mandate. They said Bush did.

And Bush did. He ran at the top of the ticket and his party gained more seats in Congress (became the first incumbent since FDR in 1936 to increase his own vote and the size of his majority in both the House and Senate).

That is a manadate.
This is undisputable, yet you're disputing it.


It is funny to watch you, a person who easily blames Bush for things that are not his fault not give him credit when he is both the head of the Republican party and running for re-election.
7.29.2008 1:48pm
The Ace (mail):
Another incoherent whopper from jukeboxgrad:

I said Obama's bill contained a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground.

You deny this. And your idea of showing proof is to paste in a paragraph from National Review that is both incoherent and irrelevant.


Um, how was it "irrelevant"? Note you can't say.

Oddly enough, a good way to learn about Obama's bill is to look at Obama's bill.

Um, I did. In fact, I was the one making reference to it.

However, that does not mean the bill was in any way coherent or sane. That is why I posted this:


[Obama's] positions on the surge and withdrawal are flatly incoherent. He's committed to withdrawal in 16 months, but a withdrawal timetable is contingent upon conditions on the ground.


His bill called for a withdrawal timetable but he said what, again? Oh, "in response to conditions on the ground"

Which is incoherent when you announce the bill you say the bill:

offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008


Then start babbling about conditions on the ground.

Love how you think the NR snippet is "irrelevant"

Laugh out Loud funny.
7.29.2008 1:55pm
The Ace (mail):
Loved this from jukeboxgrad:

Of course, you provide no link, and you don't even mention where you found the text

The same person posting this as "proof"


This is what NBC News said: "Bush … has a solid mandate."

This is what the LA Times said: "Bush can claim a solid mandate."

This is what the Boston Globe said: "[Bush has] a clear mandate."

USAToday ran this headline: "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority"


Note all the links!

You obviously have no sense of irony.
7.29.2008 1:58pm
The Ace (mail):
More hilarity from jokebox,

Um, why are we supposed to accept what a GOP ignoramus, just like you, is saying as fact? I'll take the claim seriously when you show a reliable source. Or when you show source that provides more detailed and verifiable analysis.

Um, are you suggesting the data, not opinions, is not verifiable? You can't look at the FEC site? Is that your contention?

Because it is.


MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.



And, every poll ever conducted demonstrates journalists are leftwingers.

This is undisputable. You are disputing it. Why?
Because you're not that bright and easily misled.

By the way, who do you think has more influence on news articles, the people who type up the articles or the people who own the paper?

The people who own the paper have no influence. And you can't demonstrate otherwise.
7.29.2008 2:02pm
PC:
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the most Marxist candidate the left wing has ever fielded. He's so far to the left that Karl Marx is spinning to the right in his grave just to give some balance. Barack HUSSEIN Obama's socialistic policies will bankrupt this country and generate the largest national debt we've ever seen. He'll go around the world waging war and spending our tax dollars on left-wing-commie-ideas like nation building. By the time Barack HUSSEIN Obama leaves office, the US dollar will be halved in value and the price of gas will have quadrupled.
7.29.2008 3:00pm
PC:
This is what NBC News said: "Bush … has a solid mandate."

This is what the LA Times said: "Bush can claim a solid mandate."

This is what the Boston Globe said: "[Bush has] a clear mandate."

USAToday ran this headline: "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority"


Proof of the liberal media conspiracy!
7.29.2008 3:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace, you're a liar. Proof of that is here. Since you refuse to address that, it's fair to assume that you don't expect to be taken seriously.

You also need to explain why you're failing to address what I said to you here.
7.29.2008 3:18pm
PC:
If I may suggest a cure to Obama's far-left commie policies, we need to elect more upstanding, conservative officials to public office.
7.29.2008 3:20pm
The Ace (mail):
More jokebox:


NPR said this: "The president's people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate."

That darn liberal media!


It was a mandate. Pointing out facts hardly demonstrates the media are not by and large leftists.

I did enjoy this however,


The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar - 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).


But remember, not only do they self ID as liberal, they donate to liberal politicians, but dammit they are hard on Obama in their stories!!!
7.29.2008 3:20pm
Hoosier:
The people who own the paper have no influence. And you can't demonstrate otherwise.

Hell, I own stock in "The Economist's" parent corporation. They never ask me for my opinion.

Of course the people who write the stories and decide on the editorial policies have more influence upon the readers of a paper. Who has more influnce on college students' opinions: The faculty or the trustees?
7.29.2008 3:20pm
The Ace (mail):
ace, you're a liar. Proof of that is here. Since you refuse to address that, it's fair to assume that you don't expect to be taken seriously.

Coming from the person who criticizes others for not posting links then posts alleged headlines with no links, no less!

Funny thing, I did address your "point" clearly and unambiguously. You not accepting the answer is no really relevant to anything.
7.29.2008 3:23pm
The Ace (mail):
we need to elect more upstanding, conservative officials to public office.

Coming from the party of Eliot Spitzer no less.

By the way, few, if any, conservatives consider Ted Stevens conservative.

March on, clown.
7.29.2008 3:25pm
The Ace (mail):
ace, you're a liar

Brokebox,
You're a liar. You claimed Bush, who again doesn't have the power of the purse, ran up the debt more than "all prior presidents, combined"

Liar!
7.29.2008 3:27pm
Michael B (mail):
PC,

If genuinely vapid sneers represented astute political commentary, you'd be a genius.

Obama is not a Marxist (then again, what's wrong with some hyperbole? - ample numbers among the Left engage in it liberally), but he arguably is the most leftist candidate the Democrats have fielded, with the single possible exception of George McGovern.

And that is why you sneer - in lieu of forwarding a sound, cogent, rationally accessible argument.
7.29.2008 3:31pm
PC:
Ace:
Coming from the party of Eliot Spitzer no less.

By the way, few, if any, conservatives consider Ted Stevens conservative.


Indeed, Elliot Spitzer was a stain on the moralizing left-wing that seeks to enforce its sexual morality on the people. Luckily we have public officials like Jack Ryan, Larry Craig, and David Vitter to show us the evils of Spitzer's ways.

Michael B:
Obama is not a Marxist (then again, what's wrong with some hyperbole? - ample numbers among the Left engage in it liberally), but he arguably is the most leftist candidate the Democrats have fielded, with the single possible exception of George McGovern.

And that is why you sneer - in lieu of forwarding a sound, cogent, rationally accessible argument.


I was simply echoing Crafty Hunter's sound, cogent and rationally accessible argument. You can find similar arguments on this site with a simple search. A broader search of the web produces even more sound, cogent and rationally accessible arguments.
7.29.2008 3:47pm
Michael B (mail):
Selective, lowest common denominator rationalizations. Original!
7.29.2008 4:10pm
PC:
Selective, lowest common denominator rationalizations. Original!


I try to match the level of discourse I'm presented with. Barack Obama: Most radical left-wing socialist the Democratic party has ever fielded for the presidency or one of the most radical left-wing socialists the Democratic party has ever fielded for the presidency? I gather you think the latter is possible, but the former is arguable.

As Brian G so eloquently put it: "the fact that he is a one-world Socialist assures that I will never vote for him."

Now we just need some talk about the NWO and the Amero and we'll have a sound, cogent and rational thread.
7.29.2008 4:36pm
LM (mail):
The Ace:

Um, and then what? Linking to examples of conservatives approving of previous studies doesn't make this one true.

As you know, I never said they do. You implied the study was left wing biased. What those links show is that if the people who did the study have any bias at all, it's pro right wing. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no evidence for your argument.
7.29.2008 5:42pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

You're a liar. You claimed Bush, who again doesn't have the power of the purse, ran up the debt more than "all prior presidents, combined"


With regard to "the power of the purse:" maybe you're trying to say that blame should go to the GOP, since the GOP controlled congress for most of Bush's term. If that's what you mean, fine with me.

And I guess you never heard of a thing called a "veto." Prior to the time that the GOP lost control of congress in 2007, Bush issued this many: one. He opposed stem-cell research.

Let's review some numbers. When Dubya took over, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it's about $9.5 trillion. By the time Bush leaves office, it will be about $9.8 trillion. That means he will have added $4.1 trillion to the debt. So you're right, he didn't quite double the debt. He 'only' increased it by 72%. Nice!

Anyway, thanks for the correction. I should not have said that Dubya more than doubled our national debt. I meant to say that he more than doubled our debt to foreigners. When he took office, the US owed foreigners about $1 trillion. Now we owe foreigners about $2.4 trillion (pdf). So yes, Bush borrowed more from foreigners than all prior presidents, combined. Sen. Coburn (R) has said what I've said: it's immoral to pay for the war by putting our children into debt. He voted against a war-funding bill, for this reason.

And here's another fascinating fact:

since 1776, we have racked up a cumulative deficit — the national debt — of nearly $10 trillion . . . and fully three-quarters of that was racked up under just 3 of our 43 presidents: Reagan, Bush, and Bush.


And another:

Add in all the Republican administrations, not just the last three, and their proportion of the national debt rises to 85 percent.


Yup, the GOP sure is the party of fiscal responsibility. Don't worry, though. We can count on McCain to fix that. Just ignore the fact that the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has found a $2.8 trillion gap in the numbers he's been putting out.
7.29.2008 5:44pm
Michael B (mail):
PC,

You do have a way of staying on-message, there's nothing like a stolid consistency, eh? Not to mention the risk-avoidance it conveniently affords.

1) the level of discourse and 2) the realities before us, are the two salient factors, in general terms, informing the discussion. Selectively choosing from the former, while ignoring the latter - and additionally forwarding literally nothing but a sneering dismissiveness - remains a choice.

We can explore the details, but the fact remains, Obama is decidedly the most leftist contender since George McGovern and arguably is to the left of McGovern himself, at least as pertains to some issues of note (***). Bill Clinton doesn't come close, though Hillary at times did, and Jimmy Carter was perhaps the worst president of the 20th century, easily among the worst, but that wasn't primarily due to his soft left sensibilities. And prior to '68/'72, no one comes remotely close.

*** George McGovern, though this is rarely noted, argued forceably from the Senate floor in favor of intervention once the informal (i.e. not from the MSM) reports began to filter in, concerning the genocide, the killing fields, in Cambodia.
7.29.2008 5:51pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

That is a manadate. This is undisputable, yet you're disputing it.


There you go again, trying to move the goalposts around. The issue is not whether you or I think that Bush's 50.7% is fairly called a mandate. The issue is that you said this:

Name one example of a "liberal" reporter doing this [describing Bush's victory as a mandate]


It's not just that you claimed Bush's victory was a 'mandate.' You claimed that no 'liberal' reporter ever said this. Trouble is, you're wrong. I proved it. But instead of just admitting you're wrong, you're trying to pretend that you said something other than what you actually said. All you're proving is that you have a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

And yes, I don't think it's fair to claim that Bush's victory margin (2.5%) was a 'mandate.' Since 1892, only three elections ('60, '68 and '76) have been won with a smaller margin. Of course not counting Bush's own negative margin in 2000.
7.29.2008 6:06pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

Um, I did. In fact, I was the one making reference to it.


You're claiming that you looked at Obama's bill. If so, then you're admitting you're a liar. Because what you did here is try to claim that the bill did not contain a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground. But as I pointed out here, the bill does indeed contain such a provision. So you're letting us know that you didn't just make a mistake. Rather, you knowingly told a lie.

how was it "irrelevant"? Note you can't say


The NR clip you cited is indeed irrelevant, and I did indeed already explain why. You used it to support your claim about the bill, but the clipping (and the article it came from) aren't about the bill, and don't even mention the bill.

Which is incoherent when you announce the bill you say the bill:

offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008


There you go again, with your dishonest citing. You are suggesting that Obama said those words ("offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008"). Meanwhile, of course, you provide no link and you don't mention where you found those words.

Those words are not Obama's. Those words were written by a reporter.

Anyway, a sentence like that in a news article is not attempting to summarize all the details of the bill (such as the fact that it has a provision to suspend the withdrawal). And if the reporter is not fairly summarizing the bill, that's not Obama's fault. Blame it on that darn liberal media.

Let's review. In your attempts to prove what the bill says, so far you've cited the bill itself this many times: zero. Instead, you cited an NR article that isn't even about the bill, and doesn't mention the bill. And then you cited a WP article, and used it to pretend that Obama said something that was actually said by a reporter. Heckuva job! We're counting on you to keep up the good work.
7.29.2008 6:20pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

Note all the links!


You're whining about how you want to be spoon-fed some links, for the articles where 'liberal' reporters claimed that Bush's victory margin represented a mandate. A good place to start is here. And here. A direct link to one of the articles is here. If you want more, you can do your own googling.

We're still waiting for you to explain why you said this:

Name one example of a "liberal" reporter doing this [describing Bush's victory as a mandate]
7.29.2008 6:25pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

The people who own the paper have no influence.


Yes, we all know that Rupert Murdoch has "no influence" over Fox News. It's only a coincidence that his properties all over the world generally communicate conservative views (although he seems so disgusted with the GOP that he has said nice things about Obama).

Next please tell us about the tooth fairy.

But remember, not only do they self ID as liberal, they donate to liberal politicians, but dammit they are hard on Obama in their stories!!!


Yes, the press is inclined to give Obama a free pass. That's why those Wright clips were run only once or twice.

And that's why the press is calling on McCain to sign SF-180 so we can finally find out what really happened 30 years ago during those mysterious 13 months (which are the only executive experience he ever had, and which are nevertheless mysteriously not even mentioned in the official bio on his web site).
7.29.2008 6:39pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

Who has more influnce on college students' opinions: The faculty or the trustees?


Sorry, but the analogy is very weak. What I say in the classroom today is not readily available to the bosses first thing tomorrow morning. If I'm a reporter writing an article, it is.
7.29.2008 6:40pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

Coming from the person who criticizes others for not posting links then posts alleged headlines with no links, no less!


There you go again, trying to distort the record. The problem that I described here is not that you failed to include a link (it's true that part of the story is that you failed to include a link, but that's incidental). The problem is that you told a lie about where you got something.

Funny thing, I did address your "point" clearly and unambiguously. You not accepting the answer is no really relevant to anything.


Yes, "funny" indeed. You should tell us where you "did address" this issue, because your answer is well-hidden. Give us a hint about which planet it's on.
7.29.2008 6:45pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace:

few, if any, conservatives consider Ted Stevens conservative


I don't have any examples of conservatives calling Stevens conservative. I just have this:

I'm honored to be here with the Alaskan of the century … I really am honored to be here with Ted. I appreciate a lot about him. I appreciate he's a straightforward fellow. … There's no -- as we say down home, there's no bull about him. And that's good. And that's good. … That's good for the Senate, that's good for the people of Alaska and, more importantly, it's good for the United States of America. It is essential that this man be reelected senator from the state of Alaska. … It is an honor for me to be here with a great man. I want to thank you for helping him get re-elected. I'm proud to call him friend.
7.29.2008 7:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ace, we're also still waiting for you to explain why you said this:

Rumsfeld said no such thing.


I proved you're wrong, here.
7.29.2008 7:05pm