The ridiculousness of Obama

[Ramo]

I heartily disapprove of zombificiation. I got pulled into this argument by others...

[Impaler[WrG]]

This thread dose look very foresightfull one year later, which is quite surprising given the volatility of the primary season.

Also with respect to match up polls they are heavily affected by how well the potential GE candidate is doing in their respective Primary. When McCain was left for dead by the media last fall he was losing the match ups by about the same amount as Romney and Gulliani, after he became the favorite he surged up and came to parity with Obama and Clinton. Now that Obama is surging in his Primary and Clinton is waining their projections against McCain have followed a similar trend. If Obama and McCain can decisively end the Primaries on March 4th then the numbers will crystallize, most likely with a solid 5-7 point lead for Obama which will set the tone for the rest of the race, "Can McCain come from behind to win?".

Decisively ending the Primaries would require that Clinton drops out and Huck is pushed fully out of the media spotlight to allow a clear 1 on 1 general election type coverage to become the new media mantra. The MSM is having difficulty transitioning from the binary-independent-primaries mode despite having declared McCain the Republican nominee they continue to occasionally cover Huck out of symmetry as they can't stand their being an odd number of people still in the race.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
As far as what I predicted, I was saying that Obama's numbers would look better as the race proceeds, and he introduces himself to the voters. I think my position is borne out better than yours...

I never made any prediction as to Obama's prospects in the Democratic primary, so I can't imagine how you'd draw that comparison.

Originally posted by Ramo
Your attitude, incidentally, is radically different from the one you espoused last year. You were saying that Obama's numbers from almost two years before the general election matter, but the ones 9 months before don't?

I don't know what thread you're reading, because I only argued that matchups were somewhat less inaccurate than favorability ratings. Not once did I say or imply that polls during primary season matter when it comes to general elections.

I can't imagine how you could misconstrue statements such as:

Originally posted by Darius871
Neither measure is accurate this early on

Originally posted by Darius871
no poll prior to summer 2008 can possibly make me share your pie-eyed optimism.

Seeing as it isn't summer 2008, I fail to see any inconsistency. Nice try though.

[Ramo]

I didn't say that the polls right now are necessarily going to be true either. But I do think that the head to head polls right now are a far better predictor than the polls two years out (before any campaigning)...

I just don't understand what argument you're trying to make...

I never made any prediction as to Obama's prospects in the Democratic primary, so I can't imagine how you're drawing a comparison.

I was referring to the head to head numbers with McCain as well. I think my prediction has been borne out (that lack of familiarity depressed his numbers).

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
I just don't understand what argument you're trying to make...

I never had an argument or prediction, only general criticism of using any type of primary-season polls to forecast a general election, especially when one primary is already completed while the other is as heated as possible, meaning that both favorability and general election head-to-head polls would be more skewed by disproportionate media coverage than at any other time.

After Obama has survived the initial gauntlet of GOP mudslinging (on both his personal life and potentially unpopular Senate voting record) and has also mopped the floor with McCain in a few debates, then polls might start to have predictive value. Until then they are nothing but mental masturbation. That is, and always has been, my sole contention.

[Kidlicious]

Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'

She's pretty mad. She better have her facts straight.

Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'

(CNN) -- A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false."


Sen. Hillary Clinton waves campaign literature she says is false. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is behind her.

Clinton jabbed the air with her hands as she told a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, that two Obama mailings spread lies about her positions on universal health care and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said.

Polls show Clinton and Obama are in statistical dead heats in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, which both hold votes March 4.

With Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland nodding in agreement behind her, Clinton accused Obama of emulating the tactics of Karl Rove, President Bush's former political director who is reviled by Democrats.

Obama "is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio," Clinton said. Watch Clinton demand a 'real campaign' »

One mailing says her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay, a charge Clinton vehemently denied.


"Sen. Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," she said.

The NAFTA mailer says Clinton was a "champion" for NAFTA while first lady, but now opposes it. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

"I am fighting to change NAFTA," Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged," she said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton denied Clinton's assertions that the literature was false.

"Everything in those mailers is completely accurate, unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton's negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America," Burton said.

Clinton challenged Obama to "meet me in Ohio, and let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

The two are scheduled to meet for a debate next week in Cleveland, Ohio.

Burton said the Obama campaign looked forward "to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts, and the facts are that Sen. Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began. "

"And she herself has said that under the Clinton health care plan, she would consider 'going after the wages' of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, whether they can afford it or not," he added.

Saturday was not the first time the Clinton campaign has criticized mailings from the Obama campaign.

In late January, leading up to Super Tuesday contests on February 5, the Clinton camp said Obama mailings distributed in Connecticut took Clinton's statement about her Iraq war vote out of context.

The Obama flier said the New York senator had admitted voting in favor of the war even though she had not read an intelligence report that cast doubt on claims that Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The Clinton campaign called the mailer misleading, saying only "a handful of senators" had read the report itself -- and that most, like Clinton, had instead opted for a briefing by the report's authors.

Obama has accused both Clinton and her husband of engaging in unfair attacks.


Obama, who has rolled to 11 straight wins since Super Tuesday, leads Clinton by 140 pledged delegates, according to CNN estimates, going into the Texas and Ohio primaries.

Vermont and Rhode Island also hold primaries on that day. E-mail to a friend

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Wow. I really underestimated Obama (or, more accurately, Obama's organization). On the other hand, I was spot-on about Giuliani. Interesting thread revival.

[Kidlicious]

Caption this.

I'm thinking about it for an avatar.

[Ramo]

After Obama has survived the initial gauntlet of GOP mudslinging (on both his personal life and potentially unpopular Senate voting record) and has also mopped the floor with McCain in a few debates, then polls might start to have predictive value.

The same is equally true for McCain. The voters are not going to like his joke of a health care plan (a uniform tax credit!), for example.

We've got two media darlings, and they're both going to face tough criticism that they haven't really faced in the coming months. I see no reason why this would disproportionately hurt Obama (see McCain's lobbying scandals or his public financing gymnastics, for instance).

[Darius871]

I don't disagree with those basic dynamics, but it still won't change my blanket agnosticism when it comes to pre-convention polls. If I'd ever paid them any heed, Gore and Kerry might have seemed like sure things at times. As much as I hope you're right, we're really talking about another coin-flip here.

[Ramo]

I'd agree that the situation is likely to change drastically, but I'd argue that these changes are more likely to hurt McCain. Ending the surge and the associated increase in violence, fundraising, the economic downturn, and the basic issue environment are all likely to help Obama's campaign. Then there are wildcards like whether or not there's any basis to the NYT affair story (David Brooks, FWIW, claims that if there is, that alone dooms McCain's campaign) or if the Senate were to bring up immigration reform again (which I fervently hope Reid is planning on doing). McCain appeals to the gut and voter's sense of honor, but that only goes so far. I could be completely wrong on all this, but we're arguing probabilities here...

About polls, I'm sure that is not true for Gore (he was consistently down up till the convention), and don't have any recollection of "sure thing" scale leads from Kerry.

[Darius871]

While I agree that the issue environment tips the scales in Obama's favor, I think you too readily attribute to the average voter the rational issue-geekdom to which you, those who surround you, and the average polytubby are acclimated. The sheer irrationality and emotional impulsivity of most real voters is precisely why I find this game so consistently unpredictable. I'll stick to blackjack thank you very much.

[giblets]

If the Dems overall think that Obama is electable in the general election, they are seriously detached from reality. Who is going to vote for a "real progressive?" There ain't no votes there!

Hey, maybe the Dems ought to nominate the lightweight instead: John Edwards.

NOW WHO'S DETACHED FROM REALITY?

[giblets]

Slow, not so. Obama has no fixed public image other than the positives that came out of his speech at the Dem convention. He can adjust his policies to the center and win on charisma.

This guy seems pretty smart.

[DaShi]

Ah, my favorite thread.