Tweet
My optimism aside, I'm just making the point that the ballot test is worthless since name recognition disparities (which will be eliminated by the time of the general election) figure so heavily into it. Favorability/unfavorability numbers test how the candidate is appealing to the general public, which is only important data until the candidate's and opponent's name recognition build up.
-
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
What I don't get is how name recognition (or lack thereof) invalidates one method but somehow leaves the latter unscathed.
Considering the favorable/NHO ratings of Obama, Giuliani, and McCain are 40/36, 60/10, and 54/10 respectively, it should be obvious that name recognition disparities severely skew this method as well. I'd even argue they skew enough to invalidate it, at least this early on.Comment
-
Obama:
Comment
-
It's great to see the republicans so scared.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"Comment
-
I don't get the feeling that Republicans are scared of Obama at all. Hillary seems to the potential Dem candidate they view as the biggest threat.KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!Comment
-
IndeedIt's great to see the republicans so scared.
Whether Obama can maintain his high favorability/unfavorability ratio as he's introduced to non-political junkies is an open question. As I was saying, the current numbers aren't by any means a perfect predictor for future numbers, but they aren't terrible ones either. The ballot test, OTOH, is mostly a proxy for name recognition, and Obama's numbers are therefore almost certain to go up (barring unforseen trends).What I don't get is how name recognition (or lack thereof) invalidates one method but somehow leaves the latter unscathed.
Considering the favorable/NHO ratings of Obama, Giuliani, and McCain are 40/36, 60/10, and 54/10 respectively, it should be obvious that name recognition disparities severely skew this method as well. I'd even argue they skew enough to invalidate it, at least this early on.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Where on earth do you get that impression?Originally posted by DaShi
republicans so scared.
Fair enough. All we can do at this point is put our feet up and watch anyway.Originally posted by Ramo
Whether Obama can maintain his high favorability/unfavorability ratio as he's introduced to non-political junkies is an open question. As I was saying, the current numbers aren't by any means a perfect predictor for future numbers, but they aren't terrible ones either. The ballot test, OTOH, is mostly a proxy for name recognition, and Obama's numbers are therefore almost certain to go up (barring unforseen trends).Comment
-
How about Colin Powell and Giuliani for the GOP and Clinton/Obama for the Dems?Originally posted by SlowwHand
I still think it will be McCain/Giuliani for Republicans.
Gatekeeper"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — ConfuciusComment
-
Obama would make an interesting VP candidate but he isn't ready for prime time. However, the Dems already get 80%+ of the black vote and they'd likely lose some white votes for trying to run a black VP so tactically it doesn't make sense. The Republicans are the ones who'd stand to gain big from a black or female VP candidate since both of those groups tend to vote Democratic.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
That they're back to the same behavior when they were all ****ting themselves over Clinton.Originally posted by Darius871
Where on earth do you get that impression? These are clear signs that the party is very worried. Maybe not just about Obama, but about its future in general.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"Comment
-
The right wing radio talk shows have to have a demon they can hate and get their listeners to hate. As this thread shows some people are gullible enough to buy into that sort of stuff.Originally posted by DaShi
That they're back to the same behavior when they were all ****ting themselves over Clinton. These are clear signs that the party is very worried. Maybe not just about Obama, but about its future in general.
I do agree though it is remarkably similiar to how the right attacked Clinton, or swiftboated John Kerry, and which they are trying to do to Hilary.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
This basically sums up the prediciment for Republicans. Of course Democrats don't exactly have a better roaster but they at least don't have Bush tied around their necks.Originally posted by Ramo
Honestly, it's hard to see the Republicans win at this point. If McCain gets the nomination, there's probably going to be a significant Tancredist third party denouncing him for supporting "amnesty." If Guilliani gets the nomination (fat chance), ditto for civil unions and abortion, and he's going to be excoriated by charges of corruption (see Bernie Kerik). If Romney gets the nomination, a good chunk of his base isn't going to vote for him since he's Mormon. If someone like Newt or Brownback somehow gets the nomination, there's going to be a landslide of absurd proportions. And hanging over all their heads is Dear Leader. This is going to be sweet to watch.
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Unfortunately for the GOP, they're going to have real issues making any further headway into the African-American population following the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. The same might hold true WRT Latinos, due to many Republicans' stance on border enforcement.Originally posted by Oerdin
Obama would make an interesting VP candidate but he isn't ready for prime time. However, the Dems already get 80%+ of the black vote and they'd likely lose some white votes for trying to run a black VP so tactically it doesn't make sense. The Republicans are the ones who'd stand to gain big from a black or female VP candidate since both of those groups tend to vote Democratic.
It's a shame that some white Americans wouldn't vote for a Democratic Party presidential ticket simply because it had a minority or a female (or minority *and* female) on it. Surely it's time for the Curse of Geraldine Ferraro to wear off?
Gatekeeper"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — ConfuciusComment
-
I'd actually be ok with a Guilliani ticket. He's pretty middle of the road and we wouldn't see the die hard Christian extremist stances which we get out of Bush. I doubt Guilliani could make it past the fundies though since he's pro-choice.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He's tied with McCain at the moment, and all anyone remembers about him is his 9/11 moment, which is where his being a paranoid, psychotic control freak was really useful.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Of course they're worried about their future in general; I'm referring to Obama in particular. As far as I can tell the GOP has ignored the guy thus far, but then again I don't touch talk radio with a ten foot pole.Originally posted by DaShi
That they're back to the same behavior when they were all ****ting themselves over Clinton. These are clear signs that the party is very worried. Maybe not just about Obama, but about its future in general.
Comment
Comment