Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

McCain Opens up a 5 Point Lead over Obama

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hah, I don't care who you are but that's funny.
Are any BarryOh supporters crying stolen poll yet?

This is a perfect example where too much publicity could be a bad thing.
It's a Barack Back Fire and you can expect Obama to continue to refuse to debate McCain.




posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Eh, before anyone gets too excited one way or another...It's just a poll of "likely voters" and further a Zogby poll, you can read at FiveThirtyEight why you shouldn't put too much stock in a poll like this.

www.fivethirtyeight.com...
www.fivethirtyeight.com...

If you want a real, accurate, statistical analysis of where the election currently stands and not just one poll, then these are the websites you should be watching:

www.fivethirtyeight.com
www.pollster.com
www.electoral-vote.com

The last one currently has the entire election hinging on Virginia, but I highly doubt McCain will win Colorado.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Hah, I don't care who you are but that's funny.
Are any BarryOh supporters crying stolen poll yet?

This is a perfect example where too much publicity could be a bad thing.
It's a Barack Back Fire and you can expect Obama to continue to refuse to debate McCain.


See what i mean?


Polls showing obama in the lead are "false and not accurate"

Polls showing Obama in the rear are "the greatest thing since sliced bread"



Some people make it too easy.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Yeah...that is what I keep hearing.


Unfortunately I havent been able to deduce exactly what this "change" is going to be.


"Change" isnt always a good thing....and as bad as things suck right now they could potentially get a lot worse.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Considering that most polls have a 3-6% error rate. All this is telling me is......


they are still neck and neck. Your stretching it by trying to call it over a 9 pt, with an error is only 3 pt. leave.

You guys are really stretching it thin.


So if this means, the fact McCain has the lead in the polls, they are still neck and neck, does that mean when they were neck and neck Obama was ahead, or was McCain ahead when the polls said he was behind?

Or Obama was Behind when the polls said he was ahead?

Which one is it?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Yeah...that is what I keep hearing.


Unfortunately I havent been able to deduce exactly what this "change" is going to be.


"Change" isnt always a good thing....and as bad as things suck right now they could potentially get a lot worse.


It is not just change, Blackops, it is Change you can believe in.


Does he still use that line?

Perhaps things have changed.

[edit on 123131p://bWednesday2008 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


Lets look at it this way. Our current leader supposedly has many of these qualities. and look at the bang up job he is doing.


I think many people feel that the less involved they are, they less tainted they are and absorbed in their own interestes. You haven't had time yet to get intrenched in say: OIL COMPANIES.

Having lived in McCains state a few years, which every leaves as quickly as they can......


It doesn't say much about his capabilities either. High illegal immigration, high crime, Arizona ranks 46th in education. Racism is rampant. The Native Americans live in squallor. 80% of the Navajo Nation still doesn't have water, much less anything else. There isn't even an environmental idea to be found much less implemented. For a desert state, people use water more then here. You have multiple states and Mexico fighting over water rights, yet a sprinkler would go gushing into the street for two weeks or more.

I saw entire cities that didn't have police and fire coverage!

My husband went to school in AZ and everyone showed up to graduation packed in UHAULs ready to leave because they could not wait to get out of there.

And this is going to be the standard the country wants?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Have to agree that polls, any polls, prior to election day are not a valid indicator of how the nation will vote in that the numbers really can be skewed one way or another.

Now I don't think they are completely worthless. I think they can be used as a temperature check to see what the current trend might be. This poll doesn't surprise me, given that the MSM declared McCain the winner in the recent debate. However, I expect to see different polls when running mates are chosen.

Right now, the front-runner for veep for Obama looks to be Joe Biden, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That's a smart move for winning the election, in my opinion, considering that Obama is considered weak on foreign policy.

There are rumors that McCain will pick Lieberman as his running mate and I've heard mixed opinions as to whether this would help or hurt him. Lieberman is pro-choice, which runs counter to McCain's pro-life stand. On the other hand, I think I would puke if he chose Huckabee. Lately Huckabee has been showing his true colors, IMO.

Only time will tell.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Yeah...that is what I keep hearing.


Unfortunately I havent been able to deduce exactly what this "change" is going to be.


"Change" isnt always a good thing....and as bad as things suck right now they could potentially get a lot worse.



this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.
you could kindly review this thread (to answer your question) and choose to stay on topic here.

The topic is mccain opens up a 5 point lead over obama

and the current discussion is how its hilarious that when polls show obama ahead, the polls are wrong

when polls show mccain ahead - the polls are gloriously correct and irrefutable



[edit on 8/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 




Well that could very well establish how poor our current president has performed (news flash there) and it may show John Mccains short comings (of which I do not doubt)....however it doesnt establish a thing for Obama and it doesnt answer the question that I have asked.

What does OBAMA offer as a leader and potential president of the United States?

Not very much from what I have seen.


Is this what out electoral process has been reduced to? To vote for a man who has no qualifications based on the fact that the current president and his Republican counter part have performed poorly?

That is a sad commentary and it says quite a bit about how far things have really fallen down the tubes. It seems that we would all want for more out of a leader.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Polls go up, polls go down.

I think it'll be most interesting to see how the Obama campaign responds. Although we're not likely to see any special measures just yet.

The VP pick will provide a bounce and polling during the convention will simply be pointless given the over-exposure. The first poll of september should be the real numbers that they'll work from.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Considering that most polls have a 3-6% error rate. All this is telling me is......


they are still neck and neck. Your stretching it by trying to call it over a 9 pt, with an error is only 3 pt. leave.

You guys are really stretching it thin.


So if this means, the fact McCain has the lead in the polls, they are still neck and neck, does that mean when they were neck and neck Obama was ahead, or was McCain ahead when the polls said he was behind?

Or Obama was Behind when the polls said he was ahead?

Which one is it?



Chuck Todd would tell you it's essentially a statistical dead heat right now. Polls have McCain ahead by a few points, Obama ahead by a few points, and them tied. There is no clear frontrunner on the national poll scene.

However, elections are decided on an electoral vote basis, not popular vote. All Obama needs to do to win this election is keep the Kerry states and win Ohio, or win New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado, or Iowa and Virginia...there's far much more wiggle room for an Obama victory than a McCain one, which hinges solely on Ohio.

Vice Presidential selections are also going to be much more important in this election than in the past. If Obama picks a Biden or Zinni, his numbers could shoot up instantly with their foreign policy credentials. If McCain picks Ridge or Lieberman, his numbers are almost guaranteed to go down. There's a "gray zone" of picks who probably wouldn't do anything, like Kaine or Pawlenty, so we'll have to wait it out.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You really think Obama is going to change ANY of those things? I've got news for you - Obama received money from big oil to fund his campaign AND has his hands buried deep into big business just like any other politician. He's been linked to Bilderberg.

Now let's talk backers. Guess what sizeable investment George Soros just made? Can you say OIL???

www.bloomberg.com...

Yep, George Soros's hedge fund just sank $811 million into Petroleo Brasileiro SA. He's also Obama's largest backer.

So let's talk hypocrasy - Soros invests almost a billion in oil, yet as a Democrat and a liberal, by definition he believes in bigger government and less in free markets.

He's also with the rest of the Democrats in Congress against drilling in ANWR. How's that for being a hypocrite? And again, in case you missed it, this guy is pulling Obama's puppet strings.

Now, let's talk tax cuts. Obama has said he only plans to raise taxes for those making above $200,000 per year, right? Well if you look back at Bill Clinton's campaign to be elected he also promised the same thing, yet when he got put into office, he actually raised taxes on anyone making above $30,000 per year. Do you not see the same thing happening? If not, why? Because it's Obama? Clinton and Obama are both Democrats aren't they?

So I ask you, do you really think Obama is going to change anything of what you listed? Do you really think he gives a damn about the average citizen?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I was wondering if folks know that CNN is running a piece tonight....2000 EDT...John King interviewing McCain.

Now, some people have a knee-jerk reaction to those three letters....but pay attention to the journalist, please....not the network he/she works at.

Believe it or not, there are a few good people over at that other F-word "News" network....'Faux' News is slightly redundant, but there are some genuine people trying to actually create journalism, and not just 'parroting' White House talking points....

I was particularly interested in the little itty-bitty facts about McCain's FIRST marriage...and the timelines involved with the failure of that relationship and the beginning of the new one. Personally, I couldn't care less about it....EXCEPT...certain 'right-wingers' like to mention Bill Clinton, and his certain moment of moral depravity....so, my point here is.....if you wish to defend McCain, then by all means do so. If you want to defend Obama, do so also. If you hate Bill Clinton (or Hillary, et al) then feel free to do so.

I bring this up not to delve into anyone's personal business, in their romantic relationships....because it really is not important. I mention it only because so many think that one pecadillo by a sitting president someone taints him for life. I wish not to see it being used, against anybody. People's familial relationships should be off limits....the focus oughta be on the candidate's issues.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by evanmontegarde
 


I wouldn't get too concerned about one poll, either. However, all of the polls at this point are showing a significant decline in Obama's support levels. I think the momentum is definitely in McCain's favor, although I'd still give him no better than 50/50 odds of winning if the election were held today.

The Electoral-Vote.com site tells the tale. On August 1st, Obama was leading by their tally 316 electoral votes to 198 for McCain. In three weeks, Obama's lead is just three, 264-261 and below the threshold for victory. RCP is reporting a very similar tally, with McCain now leading 274-264.

At this stage, I'd be getting nervous if I were the DNC. The pattern is starting to look very similar to the 2004 race, where Bush also trailed throughout July and through until the last week of August before taking the lead in the polls late in the month and never looking back. Is that happening here? It may well be. McCain certainly hasn't broken into a consistent lead yet, but with the polls moving in his direction for the last month or so, it won't be long before that happens if this trend continues.



[edit on 20-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I have never been a strong believer in the Polls.

This poll had a 3% margin of error. Sample just over 1000.

It's been a crazy election season so far and the VPs haven't even been announced. Also we still have the debates etc. etc.

Cell phones....it sounds silly, but a huge portion of new voters support Obama and a huge portion of them have only cell phones rather than land lines. Cell phones aren't polled.

I think new voters also weren't polled? Only those who voted last election?

We don't have clarity yet.

Congrats to the McCain supporters for having one poll go their way, though I think some of the back-slapping here is way presumptious. It's a single poll and close polls are notoriously unreliable. You guys should save the bravado for more substatial numbers later in the season. Good luck.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I think what we are seeing here is the same thing we've seen since the Clintons left office; the Democrats are once again running a candidate big on flash and small on substance, and it is, yet again, backfiring. They became enchanted with the way Clinton charmed the voters and thought they could find another win in the same way. Gore lost because he's about as brilliant as a 10-watt bulb, and has zero appeal to anyone outside of his worshipers, but he sure is good at those soundbites. Kerry lost because, well, his campaign consistent of, basically, a "vote for me because I seem presidential and I know you hate the other guy" mentality and almost zero substance. And now Obama is slipping because, so far, his campaign has been about flash and glam and soaring oration about generalized daydreams.

What it comes down to is this: most people don't trust politicians at all. So when they have to choose between two horrible candidates, they choose the most transparent and familiar ones. McCain is pretty straight-forward on what he is. It's terrible, but at least we know what's coming. Obama has pandered to such a large range, saying whatever takes the moment and not really getting to the substance of matters, too often. That wins reality TV shows, maybe, but not elections. Add to that the fact that anyone who even remotely bothers to learn about Obama will quickly learn about his association with a lot of far-left, socialist/communist activists, and well...not many people are going to be willing to vote for him, unless they are desiring a far-left socialist US. Not saying that's what he'd bring, but, honestly, when choosing amongst two dishonest evils, you have to considered the worst-case scenario, no?

Perhaps someday the Democrats might come back to reality and have some concept of what makes a good candidate, but I don't expect it to happen soon. After all, they pushed out HRC, and she's a far stronger candidate than Obama. The powers that run the Democratic Party are pretty much all wealthy elitists, and have zero concept of life outside their bubble. (Clinging to guns and god, anyone?) As long as that remains the case, they will get support from naive young people who have been indoctrinated in the far-left education system, and those who never step outside the box it creates, and that's about the whole of their base, amongst the common people. Which means that, no matter how awful the Republican party becomes, they will still be the stronger party in most presidential elections.

So the next time you hear a Democrat on here complain about things, they might want to realize that they should be pointing the finger at their own party. I dare say, I think the laughable nature of the Democratic candidates is what has allowed the Republicans to diverge so far from what they once stood for, and has allowed these "rogues" and "mavericks" to run amok. When you know you've only got to campaign against Micky Mouse, it sure makes it a lot easier for a party to run a candidate that furthers their power, even if it brings dissent amongst the people and the former party base.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Gore lost because he's about as brilliant as a 10-watt bulb,


Yes, they just give those Nobel Peace Prizes away to anyone who collects 100 proofs of purchase stamps on the Luck Charms boxes. I am sure you have one? Right?

Geez, the arrogance is astounding.



I dare say, I think the laughable nature of the Democratic candidates is what has allowed the Republicans to diverge so far from what they once stood for,


I like this alot. It's something I haven't heard yet. The republican party is corrupt and has driven this country into wars and economic depression because...wait for it...the Democrats made them do it. That is classic.

I dare say, the self serving arrogant single-mindedness of the Republican party is what has allowed this country to lose credibility in the world and economic security at home.

And what did the Republican party once stand for? Abraham Lincoln is the father of the Republican party...It was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists and Modernists. I am certainly in favor of the Republican party returning to it's roots.

On Topic....It's just a poll. We have a long few months if we plan on posting a thread for every poll that comes out showing someone ahead.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Yes, I know polls are polls and don't mean squat.
You can blame it on the forum but these things are for sure:
1. Obama is not attracting any new voters
2. People are finally realizing they'll have to wake up from the honeymoon.
3. People can see Putin is flexing his muscles.

Obama already has all the media rope he can handle, expect the hanging to begin soon.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Funny how Obama supporters point to all kinds of polls when Obama is up but say they don't mean much when he is down.

Funny how Mccain supporters say the polls don't mean much when McCain is down but pop out the polls when he is up.

Guess polls really do matter.

That is IF your candidate is leading in the polls.

The only poll that should matter is the one voters will take on election day.


Even funnier is the fact that a lot of people, myself included, were saying that McCain was running a poor campaign. Yet he is still right up there with Obama. Obama supporters do have reason to worry.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join