ha ha ha Obama's lead falls a staggering 2 points

Discussion in 'Politics' started by stock_trad3r, Oct 17, 2008.

  1. in just two days..amazing


    The spread is only 6 points which is just three points greater than the margin of error.

    And remember it is very rare for a candidate to win without winning the popular vote, so the so called 'electoral map' which gives Obama a lead is wrong. As long as the race is this close the map means nothing.

    it appears that Joe the Pumber is hurting Obama's campaign because obama doesn't appeal to working, hard working white Americans and hillary would have made a much better nominee. She won the popular vote and doesn't think small towns peopel are bitter.

    Dow 14,000 next year
    Goog $700 by 2009
    Obama will lose
  2. TGregg


    No wonder the libs hate Joe the Plumber so much. I mean, besides he is not on a government handout program.

    You'd think he was a VP pick or something. :D
  3. Dow 14,000? Obama will lose?

    I think you're having some fun with us. Or you've received a horrible head trauma.
  4. Although I'd prefer a Mac president so that we have different parties in power (as opposed to one with over 60% of congress), I just don't see this happening. Mac just doesn't have the Reagan type appeal to catch up that fast.

    And on what planet does Mac have the popular vote lead ST? I'd love to see that poll. Could you please post it?
  5. like anyone believes you you freaking idiot
  6. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
  7. Arnie


    Obama needs at least an 8-10 pt lead to win, considering he will lose some votes to last minute changes. Happened with Wilder and Bradley. They term it the "Bradley Effect".

    The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a proposed explanation for an alleged discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in some voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to an alleged tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent.

    The theory of the Bradley effect is that the inaccurate polls have been skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[6][7] Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor in to voters' answers.

    Another possible cause of lost votes is the fact that most polls have a bais to Dem voters. What this means is that the polls will sample more Dem voters to account for the fact that more people will identify themselves as Dems. Problem is, fewer actually vote.

    Zogby shows a 5 pt lead for Obama, and they were the most accurate in the last election. That may not be enough to cover the "social desireablity bias".

    The Obama campaign has to be going bonkers that they haven't knocked this out the park. He had good momentum up until his comments to "Joe the plumber", which revealed him for what he is........a fucking communist bastard.

    Tootles.........:D :D
  8. Arnie


    Take your pick

  9. Are all Republicans on drugs these days? Zogby "the most accurate in the last election?" What alternative universe are you in? Zogby predicted a Kerry victory for crying out loud!

    Late afternoon on Election Day--awfully late for a final call--Zogby predicted that Kerry would win Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico (0 for 4!) and get at least 311 votes in the Electoral College, while Bush was assured of only 213. (The remaining 14 electoral votes were too close to call.)
    #10     Oct 17, 2008