Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 5, 2008 11:08:28 GMT -5
Is it possible that there's more to Wright than these sermons, and that his relationship to Obama is more complex that the 20 seconds of one sermon you've seen? Apparently white preachers who say crazy hateful things are something that aren't as much a big deal (see McCain endorsers Falwell, Hagee, etc.). Wake me when McCain has gone to Falwell's church or Hagee's church for 20+ years, is married by one of those guys, etc. Seeking their endorsement doesn't mean anything? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 5, 2008 11:29:33 GMT -5
Wake me when McCain has gone to Falwell's church or Hagee's church for 20+ years, is married by one of those guys, etc. Seeking their endorsement doesn't mean anything? No, I didn't say that. But it's apples and oranges to compare getting endorsements from those guys to sitting and listening to a crazy guy on the pulpit for 20 years. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 5, 2008 11:30:28 GMT -5
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on May 5, 2008 13:24:39 GMT -5
These are the interesting stats to me:
The USA Today poll said one-third of primary voters were less likely to vote for Obama because of his ties to Wright.
The results also showed the same portion less likely to vote for Clinton, a New York senator, because of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
About 38 percent of likely voters said they were less likely to vote for McCain, an Arizona senator, because of his ties to President George W. Bush.
Of course, these are just polls, and who the hell knows how accurate they are..
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,374
|
Post by SDHoya on May 5, 2008 14:31:22 GMT -5
Its not a matter so much of how accurate they are, but rather what exactly they mean. In this case, they mean absolutely nothing because there is no national election, we elect in the general election by winner take all states. The polls that actually matter are ones which would show one candidate or another gaining ground in a state which has the potential to go either way.
As far as asking these more gossipy questions, like does the Wright thing make you want to vote for him less, those numbers are very easily manipulated, how the question is asked is extremely important. I don't know the exact questions asked, but think about how the answers could be different if these were the questions asked by each poll:
A. Does Barack Obama's response in articulating that he does not condone the radical speech of Jeremiah Wright make you less likely to vote for him?
B. Does that fact that Barack Obama has recently been forced, a full month after the controversy began, to publicly reject some of the statements of his pastor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, make you less likely to vote for him?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 5, 2008 15:52:51 GMT -5
Its not a matter so much of how accurate they are, but rather what exactly they mean. In this case, they mean absolutely nothing because there is no national election, we elect in the general election by winner take all states. The polls that actually matter are ones which would show one candidate or another gaining ground in a state which has the potential to go either way. As far as asking these more gossipy questions, like does the Wright thing make you want to vote for him less, those numbers are very easily manipulated, how the question is asked is extremely important. I don't know the exact questions asked, but think about how the answers could be different if these were the questions asked by each poll: A. Does Barack Obama's response in articulating that he does not condone the radical speech of Jeremiah Wright make you less likely to vote for him? B. Does that fact that Barack Obama has recently been forced, a full month after the controversy began, to publicly reject some of the statements of his pastor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, make you less likely to vote for him? Given the volume of discussion that they generate over on the main board, I don't think there are too many people here -- whether they like them or not -- who give a whole lot of weight to what polls say. One important statistic right now is that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by about 10% (in 2006 that edge was around 4%). That's a big advantage for the fall. It may or may not impact the Presidential election, depending on a number of other factors (Independents, Dems who will vote for McCain, Repubs who will vote for Obama or Clinton, etc.), but it should translate into more gains for Democrats in Congress and other down-ticket ballots. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 6, 2008 10:47:28 GMT -5
These are the interesting stats to me: The USA Today poll said one-third of primary voters were less likely to vote for Obama because of his ties to Wright. The results also showed the same portion less likely to vote for Clinton, a New York senator, because of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. About 38 percent of likely voters said they were less likely to vote for McCain, an Arizona senator, because of his ties to President George W. Bush. Of course, these are just polls, and who the hell knows how accurate they are.. Exactly, its a poll. I don't put a lot of stock in these questions because they don't capture a lot - all they are asking is, if you were forced to vote in a one person election and that person is Clinton/Obama and the election were held right now, would this single factor make you less likely to vote for them? That a preposterous premise to a question and gives you very little information of use other than the fact that an issue is hurting a candidate 5 months before the election. That's not all that incisive. Along the same lines, a lot of people are saying right now, after seeing a bunch of negative ads and having the media hammering into them the idea that the Democratic primaries are "divisive" that they wouldn't vote for the other candidate. I don't think a lot of Edwards voters in Iowa could see themselves voting for Clinton or Obama - but they will most likely do so in a general election. When the losers start to play nice after the campaign is over and people have time to forget that their first pick lost, they'll realize that they are still Democrats or that they were voting for a candidate because of their view on a certain issue and pick the candidate that comes the closest on that issue. They won't say "oh I said I didn't like Obama/Clinton 5 months ago and I'm going to vote for a candidate that in no way represents my views to show them that." |
|
