We are the 99%

June 20, 2008

15 points

From Newsweek:
Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.
51% to 36%.

That's a 15% difference.

15 comments:

jaywillie said...

Now, Dayvoe, is this a fair poll? John K. only likes polls that are fair and unbiased...meaning he doesn't like any showing John McCain getting crushed.

A lot of people will say that it's early - and it is. But it's a good position to be in(a surprising position really) and a better position than John McCain finds himself in.

Some people might bring up '88, when polls this far out showed Dukakis ahead. I've mentioned it myself several times in conversations and on blogs. But it's not a perfict fit.

For one, Dukakis was running against a sitting VP who was well established. It's not that surprising that he was able to hang on and comeback handily.

McCain, however, had the field all to himself, until the Dem. primary ended, but was unable to get any traction. He took the lead occasionally, but never by more than a few points and usually within the margin of error. Despite having a contested Democratic primary, he was not capable of moving himself out of the mid-40's. He never broke 50%(has he ever during this campaign? I don't believe so). And it seems unlikely that he has the campaign infrastructure to mount a late comeback, so far behind in the game as is he already when it comes to fundraising and boots on the ground.

Another difference is in the styles of Dukakis and Obama. Dukakis great mistake was taking the "high road" and not responding to the scurrilous attacks of the Bush campaign(it was also Kerry's problem). Obama has not shown any hesitancy in responding to John McCain and the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Yep, any poll done by the MSNBC crowd has as much credibility as Olbermouth or you guys whining about impeachment. Got a historical poll for you though. Dukakis 56 to GHWB 36%. Yep, the poll that you cite then say, "...It's not a perfect fit." LMAO Now why isn't that poll a perfect fit? Because it proved the conservative position correct? A super liberal versus a moderate Republican. By the way, for the record, GHWB crushed Dukakis. So cite those polls that try to manipulate the news. I'll stick to the only poll that matters, the vote. LMAO I win!

Anonymous said...

Don't even know if I should bother...

Ok, I'll go for it.

John K says that the only poll that matters is the vote.

But by that criteria, Bush LOST in 2000!

Thanks, John.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: So run those polls. The only that counts is the actual vote. And the left hates that vote. Just look what they did to Sen. Clinton. Still not sure what half a vote is? Bush won in 2000. And Bush won in 2004. Of course, Sen. Kerry had won at 2:00PM because, why the polls said so. LOL LOL LOL AND IN 2000, the left tried to shut down the vote at 8:00 PM EST. Yep we have history (Dukakis and GHWB) and we have the polls from 2004. But if it makes you feel good, keep running those MSNBC Olbermouth polls. After all, Olbermouth still hasn't said a word about Countrywide.

jaywillie said...

I explain to you pretty clearly why I don't think it's a perfect correlation to compare to this year's election or are you just not capable of reading? Are you illiterate?

If you disagree with what I wrote, then offer an argument, not these meaningless jackass statements you make..."because it proved the conservative position correct"...what the fuck is that even supposed to mean in the context of this discussion? Hmmm? Anything? Because I wasn't making it an issue of ideology.

And did I or did I not mention that Bush came back to beat Dukakis? And didn't I also offer what I think partly led to that?

Could you maybe just for once actually respond to what someone says instead of trotting out the same tired fucking lines that you always use?

You don't even argue; you just pull out the same crap from you're little bag of tricks.

You are not an intelligent person, John K. Frankly, you're probably borderline illiterate because you're response make no sense...from a Newsweek poll you arrive at...attacking Olbermann for not speaking up about Countrywide?!? What the fuck, man? What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

You're a bona fide loser, John K. It would be one thing if you came on here and offered conservative arguments. But you don't even do that. You don't offer any arguments at all. It's just gibberish linked together with LMAO LOL LOL.

Anonymous said...

jaywillie said:

Well you said a lot. You make it evident that John K. has gotten under your skin and thus he wins. Your rambling diatribe where you stop using the DNC talking points expose your nasty persona was not a pleasant read. That was a combination of Democrat justification and hate speech. All along I assumed that Jaywillie was intelligent. I guess I lose.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Jaywillie you proved it to yourself but failed to make the sell to me. Lefties hate it when people disagree with them. Look at Cullen, she won't even get on the same stage as a conservative. But to continue; The 1988 poll reflected the data that Dukakis had this in the bag. Problem was the left failed to poll the middle of America. The 2004 election day poll had Kerry sweeping at 2PM. You lefties fail to understand that as much as you want it to be that way, I get a vote. And that pisses you, jaywillie, off.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Anon 4:01, lose you do. Both because you are clueless and because you are clueless. Did I mention that you are sans clue? That clues are what you lack? That if you had another clue, you would have one? That the number of clues you have, if you subtracted anything from it, would be negative?

You Wingnuts keep claiming that John is getting under our skin. This is an indication that you don't have a clue. (Have I mentioned that?) It's just that it's a blast explaining the same shit to him over and over and over, and watching him come back with (*cough* Major Andre *cough*) the daily Rush over and over. He, like you, demonstrates his impotent rage six or seven times a day. We laugh at him six or seven times a day. What part of laughing are you having a problem comprehending?

If we have to explain this to you again, it will be with the same smirk we wear when assisting the Laughing Chickenhawk with his daily self-abuse.

EdHeath said...

I suspect that at this time in the '92 election GHWB still had a considerable lead over Bill Clinton. After all GHWB had won a war.

John K is right that the vote is the only result that matters (it is not so much a poll as a survey). But you can't take preliminary votes five months out, so people do polls. And the phrasing of the questions matters, and the people you call matters (although I have trouble with the notion that "the left failed to poll the middle of America"). At the end of the day polls are only tools, snapshots of a particular time.

jaywillie said...

OMG...we have the most obtuse wingers I have ever encounterd; and that's saying something.

John, I could care less if I proved anything to you; that's not my goal. But it would be nice if you actually responded to the arguments presented instead of telling us what we think.

I mean, Lynn Cullen?!? What does that have to do with this? I don't like Lynn Cullen. I've never listened to Lynn Cullen. I will probably never listen to Lynn Cullen ever in my life.

If you want to actually disagree with me, then disagree. But why can't you do it without the incessant stream of piddling insults linked by LOL LOL LMAO? You do nothing but insult all of us with gross generalizations; rarely address the topic at hand and leave us with your smug sense of self-satisfaction.

And that Anon clown...yeah, you're a bit dramatic...and it doesn't really ramble all that much...I mean, as wingers your used to just saying something is some way and that's the way it is; so long as you believe it in your infintessimally tiny mind, who the hell is the rest of the world to disagree?...whatev...I'd like to actually see the DNC talking points that I'm using...it's simply not possibly to have a conversation with these people...

But I do enjoy responding to them.

Let's look at what we got in this latest of John K.'s responses: Well, the Lynn Cullen reference...which boggles me. Obviously, because she does it, all liberals/progressives/Democrats do it; just as Larry Craig seeks gay sex in men's rooms or David Vitter is into baby play, all conservatives/loonies/Republicans do the same thing.

He then proceeds to state polls showed that Dukakis had it "in the bag." Not something I disagree with; in fact, that was more or less the foundation of my earlier posts.

He then says that the "left," which controls the media, failed to poll "the middle of the America." I suppose the point he is trying to make is that Dukakis never really had a statistical lead. Ok...

What was my point? That Dukakis did have a lead but chose not to respond to George H.W. Bush's attacks, like the Willie Horton ad or when they started smearing his wife, and he ultimately lost because of it. In a sense, he ran a bad campaign. I say the same thing about Kerry.

John's not even in the same ballpark with his arguments.

At no point do I say this race is over - what I do say is that Obama is in a much better position at this point than McCain. I don't think any honest person following this race would disagree with that. Could that change? Yep. I never say it couldn't.

The man simply does not follow what I am talking about it.

And it actually doesn't piss me off that John K. votes. In no way would I ever discourage him or anyone from voting.

I have conservative friends; I have friends who are Republicans. I can have coherent discussions with them, so I don't think it's really a matter of me not sticking to my "DNC" talking points in dealing with the loco...er, local wingers at 2PJ.

Honestly, you guys got nothing.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Yes you do care if your prove something to me Jaywillie. You are consumed by that thought. If not then do not direct comments directly towards me. Like I said. I own this blog.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

John! Wake up, John! I know it's very pleasant for the fool to think he's the king, but sooner or later you're going to have to stop pretending that your clown hat is a crown! Wake up and smell defeat!

Anonymous said...

Does John K own this blog? I think it would be very dull without him. Just Obamakins kissing his robe as he walks by.

Anonymous said...

Pickin up on the idea that Obama will somehow bring a different socity, as he has been promising, "The Nation" has an editorial on the topic of the danger Obama faces from listening to the insiders. Here's the final paragraph:
Hard times may give Obama the chance to become a reform President who really does rearrange power on behalf of the people. But he'll need pressure from the millions of grassroots activists he inspired in the nomination battle to overcome the intimidating power of Wall Street and the energy and insurance lobbies. The best way to support Obama is not by remaining silent and giving him a pass. Citizens who believe in a more fair and just America should keep the pressure on in various ways, reminding him of his compelling challenge to the "trickle-down, on-your-own philosophy that says there's nothing government can do about the problems we face."

How do we keep up the pressure? Obama has to know we belve his words and t would be tragic if he proved false.

jaywillie said...

I am hardly consumed by that thought...I responded to you because you responded to my initial post and you did so with some rather ridiculous arguments that didn't even come close to addressin the topic at hand.

That is why I directed comments at you...I know it must be hard to keep up with the flow of comments when you're used to posting a few lines and tagging on LOL LMAO LOL...but some of us are capable of a level of debate far beyond the 3rd grade.

But I guess since you own this blog...