|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
If I call it early and correctly, wouldn't that make me "prescient" rather than "wrong"?
|
I'm saying you're not calling it correctly. Hillary wins in OH and either in TX or Penn. |
I'm confused what you meant by this though:
| Kuros wrote: |
| Even if Obama eventually wins this thing, you're wrong simply because you called it this early. |
|
I simply meant what I explained above. Stillnotking's prediction was that Clinton's campaign would end on March 4th. My counter-prediction is that she'll make it beyond that date. Whether or not Clinton or Obama wins is another story, but I highly doubt it will play out as Stillnotking laid it out. |
OK, I understand what you're saying. You're saying Obama may or may not win, but whether he does or doesn't, Clinton will not drop out March 5.
We'll see. I wouldn't bet the farm on it myself, I just think it's a reasonable possibility. It all depends on how firm Clinton's support is in the March 4 states, because she's going to be belt-whipped by the media from now 'til then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| It all depends on how firm Clinton's support is in the March 4 states, because she's going to be belt-whipped by the media from now 'til then. |
That may be the case, although one wonders how the media will begin to focus on Obama now that there's a reasonable presumption that he'll be the Presidential nominee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's a reasonable assumption neither candidate will be able to get enough delegates even on March 4th. There is a huge time lapse between then and April 22nd (about six weeks). Then again, that's what happens when most of the states decide they are going to vote in Jan and Feb.
Many in Oregon are thankful the Oregon Legislature made the choice not to follow the other states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I think it's a reasonable assumption neither candidate will be able to get enough delegates even on March 4th. There is a huge time lapse between then and April 22nd (about six weeks). Then again, that's what happens when most of the states decide they are going to vote in Jan and Feb.
Many in Oregon are thankful the Oregon Legislature made the choice not to follow the other states. |
The KY Legislature just approved a new bill moving KY up to Super Tuesday for 2012.
*shakes head* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are McCain vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Obama polls since the past year:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Head-to-head polling doesn't mean much this far out. A better predictor of the race is simply to look at the dynamics that will drive it. First thing to keep in mind is that McCain is running, essentially, on Bush's platform, which gives him most of the disadvantages of incumbency and none of the advantages.
Also, he's 71 years old. I think the McCain-Dole comparisons may turn out to be quite apt. And McCain debating Obama? That's going to be like Old Man Potter debating George Bailey.
I see very little chance of the Republicans keeping the Presidency this year. Anything's possible, and it will be a long campaign, but I'd be shocked. Unless, of course, the Democrats nominate Hillary. (It's interesting to read right-wing blogs on the Dem primaries. The general feeling is "Are they crazy? Are they really considering nominating a Clinton instead of the most dynamic, fresh-faced, motivational candidate the party has produced in at least twenty years?") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hopefully it will come down to policy.
For the record Kerry was leading Bush at this time in 2004.
All the Republicans need to do is tie in the General election.
Obama also seems to "over poll." And New hamshire is a state that is closer to the general election than just about any where else.
Up till now the only Big State he has beaten Clinton in is Ill.
She won in Florida, NY , California , and she will probably win in Texas.
| Quote: |
| Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 |
| Quote: |
| Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12 McCain +2 |
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hopefully it will come down to policy. |
Yes, hopefully it comes down to McCain arguing for a continuation of the policies of Mr. 38% Approval Rating (on a good day).
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| For the record Kerry was leading Bush at this time in 2004. |
No, he wasn't. The polls were tied within the margin of error for March 2004. I can't find February data but I doubt it was any different. Kerry didn't poll consistently or significantly ahead of Bush in a national poll until July.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| All the Republicans need to do is tie in the General election. |
Huh? I think what you're trying to say is that the Republicans only need a bare majority of electoral votes, and the popular vote can still be tied. Which is true, but equally true for the Democrats.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Obama also seems to "over poll." And New hamshire is a state that is closer to the general election than just about any where else. |
Obama underpolls much more than he overpolls. Check the polling for the Potomac Primary. No poll had Obama winning VA by more than 20 points. He won it by nearly 30. As far as NH goes, it makes no sense to equate Clinton's victory in a Democratic primary with how the state would vote in a general election between a Republican and a Democrat.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Up till now the only Big State he has beaten Clinton in is Ill. She won in Florida, NY , California , and she will probably win in Texas. |
Thank you, Mark Penn. Big states are not swing states, and unless you think McCain has a shot at CA, NY, or IL, I fail to see how any Democrat's primary performance in them means squat. Besides, the same objection stands: what's the relationship between how Democrats vote in a primary, to how the state would vote as a whole?
| Quote: |
| Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 |
| Quote: |
| Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12 McCain +2 |
Now that result is at least germane. But think about this: Obama outpolls McCain in national head-to-head polls by a consistent 4-5 point margin. Unless you think McCain can lose the popular vote by 4% and still win the election (an effective statistical impossibility), this doesn't bode well. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that head-to-head polls this far out don't mean much. We can wrangle about them in October.
One thing I don't see you addressing is turnout. One of my favorite conservative bloggers, Josh Trevino, has a good article on turnout in the primaries and how it bodes for Republicans in the general election (short version: not good). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
stillnotking"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hopefully it will come down to policy. |
| Quote: |
| Yes, hopefully it comes down to McCain arguing for a continuation of the policies of Mr. 38% Approval Rating (on a good day). |
Invade Pakistan. Terrible statment by Obama not only cause it made Musharif look bad but also cause the US was already going into Pakistan.
| Quote: |
| No, he wasn't. The polls were tied within the margin of error for March 2004. I can't find February data but I doubt it was any different. Kerry didn't poll consistently or significantly ahead of Bush in a national poll until July. |
I will have to check on that.
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 Posted: 1:38 AM EST (0638 GMT)
Sen. John Kerry leads President Bush in a new poll.
| Quote: |
(CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and retired Gen. Wesley Clark also emerge as formidable opponents, according to hypothetical matchups in the poll, which found a decline in Bush's approval numbers.
The poll, based on interviews with 1,001 adult Americans, including 562 likely voters, was conducted in the days after the New Hampshire primary.
The poll underscores both Kerry's momentum after his wins in New Hampshire and Iowa, and increased favorability among Democrats in general as they dominate political news with their primaries and steady criticism of Bush.
The general election is slightly more than nine months away and Bush has yet to launch his campaign in earnest, meaning the poll numbers are all but certain to shift.
When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush. |
| Quote: |
| Huh? I think what you're trying to say is that the Republicans only need a bare majority of electoral votes, and the popular vote can still be tied. Which is true, but equally true for the Democrats. |
The Democrats can run up the score in California and New York.
| Quote: |
| Obama underpolls much more than he overpolls. Check the polling for the Potomac Primary. No poll had Obama winning VA by more than 20 points. He won it by nearly 30. As far as NH goes, it makes no sense to equate Clinton's victory in a Democratic primary with how the state would vote in a general election between a Republican and a Democrat. |
Well there was the poll that had Obama leading in California by 13 points by Zogby and polls had him winning in New Hampshire.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Up till now the only Big State he has beaten Clinton in is Ill. She won in Florida, NY , California , and she will probably win in Texas. |
| Quote: |
| Thank you, Mark Penn. Big states are not swing states, and unless you think McCain has a shot at CA, NY, or IL, I fail to see how any Democrat's primary performance in them means squat. Besides, the same objection stands: what's the relationship between how Democrats vote in a primary, to how the state would vote as a whole? |
Big states have the most electorial votes in the general election.
| Quote: |
| Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 42, Obama 40, Und 10 |
| Quote: |
| Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 41, Obama 39, Und 12 McCain +2 |
| Quote: |
| Now that result is at least germane. But think about this: Obama outpolls McCain in national head-to-head polls by a consistent 4-5 point margin. Unless you think McCain can lose the popular vote by 4% and still win the election (an effective statistical impossibility), this doesn't bode well. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that head-to-head polls this far out don't mean much. We can wrangle about them in October. |
Still early .
| Quote: |
| One thing I don't see you addressing is turnout. One of my favorite conservative bloggers, Josh Trevino, has a good article on turnout in the primaries and how it bodes for Republicans in the general election (short version: not good). |
[/quote]
Ok Turn out.
I didn't vote in the primary I will vote in the general election.
But more than that .
And you might agree.
There is no real difference between Romeny, Gulliani, McCain , or Thompson.
and then there is history.
Last time a liberal won the white house was 1976.
Bill Clinton ran as a "New Democrat" at a time when the threat was low cause the the Soviet Union failed and on top pf that Ross Perot was running Perot took more votes from Bush I than Clinton.
If you think the Democrats are going to pick up lots of red states in the South then you probably can make lots of money betting on it.
It is not a bet I would make.
Remember Al Gore could not win in 2000 despite peace and prosperity ( I ought to know I voted for him- cause I didn't agree with Bush's tax cuts at the time) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Kerry, Edwards both top Bush in poll
Bush campaign chairman cites 'huge focus' on Dems
(CNN) --Democratic presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry both hold leads of 10 percentage points or more in hypothetical match-ups against President Bush, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.poll/
| Quote: |
Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip
(CNN) --Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and retired Gen. Wesley Clark also emerge as formidable opponents, according to hypothetical matchups in the poll, which found a decline in Bush's approval numbers.
The poll, based on interviews with 1,001 adult Americans, including 562 likely voters, was conducted in the days after the New Hampshire primary.
The poll underscores both Kerry's momentum after his wins in New Hampshire and Iowa, and increased favorability among Democrats in general as they dominate political news with their primaries and steady criticism of Bush.
The general election is slightly more than nine months away and Bush has yet to launch his campaign in earnest, meaning the poll numbers are all but certain to shift.
When the 562 likely voters were asked for their choice from a Bush v. Kerry race, 53 percent of those picked Kerry, and 46 percent favored Bush. |
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.poll/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
