Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not American), but Obama's ahead in the polls. He represents more change, and is currently en route to winning. According to a news report I saw yesterday, it's now very important that Obama wins, otherwise America will be proved a racist country. What do you Americans think of this?
Kerry was ahead in the polls and Gore might have been too. These things always tighten towards the end. If McCain wins it's not proof of racism just as Obama's double digit lead in recent days/weeks isn't proof of its non-existence. I don't remember Kerry ever having a lead in the polls the way Obama has had. And Obama looks like he has a shot in states that would have been unimaginable just four years ago, including Georgia. But as long as we're being biased, I like the US so I guess I'll conclude that this is proof that we are not racist.
I don't think this is necessary. A vote for McCain isn't necessarily a racist vote. It's a vote from folks who think: Yes the last 8 years have been GREAT. We should reward the GOP with another 4 years. Remember to think of George W. Bush's stupid smirking face when you see McCain's name on the ballot. They are one in the same.
Naah. Why would losing after being ahead in the polls prove that? It could just as easily be claimed as evidence for several other theories... such as: (A) a fallacy in polling methodology (poor sampling method can skew results, a critical flaw that caused newspapers to be sure enough of a Dewey win over Truman to go to press with it beforehand, OR (B) a possible hesitance of people being polled to say they *aren't* voting for the minority candidate in a nation where saying otherwise might be deemed politically incorrect, OR (C) a result of news stories touting a landslide victory for Obama lulling voters into false idea that making the effort to show up at the polls isnt necessary, OR (D), (E), (F)... there are plenty of other possible conclusions somebody could leap to. There will always be a plethora of theories suggested in the event of an unanticipated outcome, but jumping on one before the fact is a bit premature.
Gore was ahead by ten points going into election day. Yesterday we learned McCain was ahead by one point according to Zogby. Obama, depending on the poll, has either maintained or dropped a few points in the past week. McCain has been climbing steadily. Only one candidate is moving upwards, the other is not. 7% of independents are up for grabs. It does not appear Obama is attracting those independents. It could also be that more and more are finding out about Obama's socialist welfare state and seeing how those affected are dropping from 250k down to 120k. As to the statement, I can't see how anyone wouldn't believe the dems will play the race card when Obama loses. I've anticipated it. What else is there to play? He lied about taking public financing, he's outspent McCain so many times, it's ridiculous, the media has given Obama a free pass and virtually every major liberal outlet has already endorsed him (who was shocked that the NYT endorsed Obama?). It's Obama's and the democrat's to lose. All this talk about socialist and marxist policies is not what America wants or needs.
Why are you so fixated on "race" and the "race card" in this Presidential election? What is your problem with someone's skin color?
I hadn't anticipated someone would go such extraordinary lengths to help prove my point. Feel free to practice on me, till you get it right
1. Gore was not up by 10 points going into the 2000 election. He was down by about 2 or 3 and he actually outperformed his polling numbers on election day (as you know he won the popular vote by 0.5%) 2. Yes McCain was up in the SINGLE DAY polling of the very erratic Zogby poll which includes very favorable party ID weightings for the GOP (using 2004 numbers.) Most importantly that single day poll is of only 400 people. All of the other polls appear to be either stagnant or showing movement towards Obama. Including the Gallup polls which now have Obama ahead by 10% points in both of their likely voter screens (and up by 11% among registered voters.)
My bad. He was up by 11 points http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/05/tracking.poll/index.html Reagan trailed Carter by 8 points by mid-October in 1980.
GTech: Do you realize how intellectually dishonest you are being? I'm really curious. Are you just trolling or are you really this.. um.. Well I can't think of a nice way of putting it. This poll you've linked to that had Gore up by 11. Well 2 very important things. One it was from OCTOBER 4th! Second it's ONE poll with a very small sample size (672.) This would be like someone picking out that Zogby outlier from last night (McCain +1 in single day of polling - 400 respondents) and saying (when Obama wins by 10% on Tuesday) - "LOOK! Obama outperformed polling by 11 points!" Do you understand what I'm saying here? You have to look at the collection of polls - not cherry pick one result to fit your narrative.
GTech: To put the final smack down on your ridiculous claim that Gore was up by 10 points in polling prior to the 2000 election. Check this out: Bush 49%, Gore 42% That's a tracking poll from October 26 through October 29 so it's much closer to the current time and it's a much larger poll as far as sample size. Also take note of the bottom where it notes other polls: ABC News/Washington Post 47-46 (Bush up 1) MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby 44-43 (Bush up 1) So do you admit that your claim of some massive comeback for Bush in 2000 is nonsense?
No, I do not. I'm not a liberal. You presume dishonesty, but this is something I've heard quite often. A poll four weeks out was the best I could find to substantiate that view. Continuing my search for more data, I came across this one: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/29/tracking.poll/ If I were intellectually dishonest, as you claim, why would I post something contrary to what I've heard? Further more, why would I do your job for you? Edited: Apparently you did do, just what I suggested.
See my previous response to your previous response. While you were responding, I was responding with the same data. No need to be rude about it, even if it is second nature.
Uh... You just posted the exact link I already posted. You were looking for information to fit with some narrative you have, but the facts don't fit with your story. I consider that to be intellectually dishonest. To get an exact comparison to today let's look at the polls from the final Saturday of the 2000 race (just like today) November 4, 2000 CNN Poll: Bush 47, Gore 43 ABC/WashPo: Bush 48, Gore 45 Zogby: Bush 46, Gore 42 If anyone had a comeback in 2000 it was Gore. Of course that comeback was facilitated by the late breaking DUI story. I don't think there is anything that big coming out this time around. 2004 polling had Bush ahead in late October. Polls in '04 were actually very accurate. Their November 1, 2004 "poll of polls" had Bush over Kerry by 2 points. He ended up winning by 3 points I believe. Obama is up by 6 points today using a similar "poll of polls" technique. I believe it's likely Obama will outperform the polls due to his superior enthusiasm, GOTV, and because it appears likely (from early voting results) that the polls are under weighting black voters. But even if he does not, unless something huge comes out in the next 2 days - Obama should win handily on Tuesday. But that doesn't mean Obama supporters should stay home: Go to VoteForChange.com to find your polling location.
While I was responding to the initial post and researching additional data, you made the reply with the link. Hence why I placed an "Edit" in my response, because I realized after my post, you had made an interim post during the time I was formulating a response. If you feel it's necessary to be an ass, after I've ceded the issue by correcting my own misconception, then so be it. This would be the typical behavior I've come to expect from liberals. Then again, you might could prove me wrong on that too
In that case go face the music in the thread about Obamas aunt and prove your own intellectual honesty. You've set yourself up for a fall in there. Either you value intellectual honesty or you dont. If you won't answer the question in there... skip pointing fingers at others.