-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)
- Thread starter Rur0ni
- Start date
- Status
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Americans are so coolartredis1980 said:i thought bitter tears would have the opposite effect, just shows the common man in USA is not stupid
gluv65 said:
But that's impossible because some really smart people in this thread said that everyone in pennsylvania thought that he was being and elitist.:lol
How dare that typical white man agree with anything Obama says!
CoolTrick said:
And that typical white pennsylvanian republican doesn't agree with you. The exact kind of person that it is supposed to offend agrees with it. What fucking planet are you on?
And to be fair, Reverend Wright had no permanent impact on the polls
Of course it did. What in the world are you smoking? Just because it showed no permanent impact on the few polls you were looking at doesn't mean it didn't have an impact. It really hurt Obama's favorability ratings, hurt him in Pennsylvania and other territories, hurt him with Independants and Conservatives, and will hurt him in the general.
If you think it didn't have a permanent impact on the polls, you're living in the Obamabubble.
I doubt this is as bad but of course Obama is going to take a hit. It's already apparent in the Rasmussen poll.
*eyes* There are plenty of anecdotes that say the opposite, so no point in playing that game.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Explain Obama being ahead of Hillary in a statistically significant way by one of the most accurate polls (Gallup) for weeks now.CoolTrick said:
During which Hillary hit an all-time low of 41 points.
Spin away.
Edit: Unless your argument is that Obama should be even more significantly in the lead than he currently is....but somehow I doubt that.
Tamanon said:I never said it didn't have an impact. It didn't have a PERMANENT one. Don't be so touchy.
Wait, Rasmussen is being offered as proof, but you say Gallup doesn't count because not enough time has passed?
Of course.
But when Rasmussen shows Obama way ahead it is disregarded as inaccurate.
Because to only look at that is being in your little delusional bubble.
I'm not going to debate this. I'm not going to drudge up polls for you guys. If you people genuinely don't think the Rev. Wright didn't permanently hurt Obama and he's covered in all the polls, then you can enjoy your outrage when it's brought up again and again and again.
Wait, Rasmussen is being offered as proof, but you say Gallup doesn't count because not enough time has passed?
I'm more than happy to say it allegedly didn't hurt in Obama's tracking on Gallup if it didn't. But to say he wasn't hurt at all when you just saw one of the two major daily pollsters put Clinton ahead and the other still hadn't even had a full day before interviews on this were conducted, how in the world can you say it hasn't had an effect?
I already told you. His favorability numbers fell, his standings with independants and conservatives fell, it very very likely slowed his catchup in Pennsylvania, and it's still being talked about. The same people that have started to be cited as being hurt in PA. I think according to Rasmussen, the impact was softer on actual Democrats. Same with Rev. Wright. I doubt bittergate is as bad for Obama as that minister, but it hurts him with the same people.
Why you continue to deny the impact of this story just boggles my mind. Just because you don't think it matters doesn't mean it doesn't matter to other people.
Being a Pennsylvanian, I don't think Barack's off the mark whatsoever.
If he takes a hit on this it will have nothing to do with the content of his statement. Rather, it will be on the way in which Obama has generalized a group of people. No one likes to have an "outsider" sum them up in what could be perceived as a negative light.
If he takes a hit on this it will have nothing to do with the content of his statement. Rather, it will be on the way in which Obama has generalized a group of people. No one likes to have an "outsider" sum them up in what could be perceived as a negative light.
By the way, my prediction for how this story affects Obama in PA:
I doubt it does too much because the real swing voters in this race are likely to focus on the "people being bitter" part of what he said, the alright-people in the suburbs.
What I do think this does is hurt him even more with a demographic he's been unable to win over much: the social values voters -- IE, in Pennsylvania, the Catholic vote. THEY are the ones who, since they believe religion is so important in their lives, I predict will focus on Obama saying "people cling to religion [as a way to express their bitterness]" and NOT take kindly to that whatsoever. It's that latter part that really hurts him, and the people to be most affected by that are probably already in Hillary's Camp. However, of course, this can't help, and may see her get even more of that vote than the 80% she was getting before.
I doubt it does too much because the real swing voters in this race are likely to focus on the "people being bitter" part of what he said, the alright-people in the suburbs.
What I do think this does is hurt him even more with a demographic he's been unable to win over much: the social values voters -- IE, in Pennsylvania, the Catholic vote. THEY are the ones who, since they believe religion is so important in their lives, I predict will focus on Obama saying "people cling to religion [as a way to express their bitterness]" and NOT take kindly to that whatsoever. It's that latter part that really hurts him, and the people to be most affected by that are probably already in Hillary's Camp. However, of course, this can't help, and may see her get even more of that vote than the 80% she was getting before.
RubxQub said:
Tell me what you see.
Tell me what you read:
"In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Clinton has gained a statistically-insignificant one-point advantage over Obama, 46% to 45%. Obama led by a significant margin for most of the past week, but his advantage had declined slightly even before his controversial remarks from San Francisco made news (see recent daily results)."
*eyes*
Oh, and by the way, I see you aren't bringing up his favorability numbers, his standings with independant and conservative voters, etc. etc., all the people that I said this was hurting him with. Newsflash: The Gallup Daily isn't breaking down that for you.
Oh, but, wait, Rasmussen does, and low and behold, since you want to stay so focused on DAILY tracking polls, shows that Obama's favorability numbers have taken a hit since even yesterday I believe.
typhonsentra
Banned
Uh, the impact of the Wright controversy was immediate. He fell the day after the story broke. It took a few days for him to fall below Clinton, but he had a drop in polling for the day after the story initially broke nationally.CoolTrick said:
AdmiralViscen
Banned
gkrykewy said:
Wrong.
RubxQub said:
Pardon?
Go look at polls about his favorability, his standings with independants, whites, and conservatives. He permanently fell.
You lose. Just because you don't want to look at them doesn't change that it's fact.
I'll even kindly point out where you can easily find one: Obama's hit in favorability is shown in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll.
CoolTrick said:
I love how you ignore the more credible tracking agency [Gallup] but keep spouting the numbers from one of the least credible. If you want to talk polls, surveys, and statistics, Survey USA will tell you that Rasmussen is on the bottom end of the scale.
But you know, everyone else is living in their bubble.
typhonsentra
Banned
Yeah, the day the story broke. The day after that, which is the equivalent to today, we saw some drop.CoolTrick said:
And I'm not denying a drop will eventually come by the way, especially when we get into normal weekday programming hammering him for it. But I'd say it's telling that the first day saw no fall-out. He'll be able to weather this thing.
It has nothing to do with what polling agency, jesus.
But the Gallup daily tracks what it tracks and doesn't break it down. You're never getting the subgroups.
Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama's favorability numbers, his general electability, and his standings with independants, conservatives, and whites.
That data comes from various sources, not just Rasmussen, but it's there, and you all SAW it when the Rev. Wright was the #1 story, so why you try to deny it now I have no idea.
But the Gallup daily tracks what it tracks and doesn't break it down. You're never getting the subgroups.
Rev. Wright permanently hurt Obama's favorability numbers, his general electability, and his standings with independants, conservatives, and whites.
That data comes from various sources, not just Rasmussen, but it's there, and you all SAW it when the Rev. Wright was the #1 story, so why you try to deny it now I have no idea.
typhonsentra said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the story broke Friday night. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that interviews conducted less than a day after it broke and gained traction may not reflect how this story hit -- especially when it shows it did in another polling firm.
kkaabboomm
Member
- Ras
- gallup
so basically, both pollsters say that as of today, the 'bitter' remarks have not had an impact on the daily tracking polls. Ras's Clinton+1, according to Ras, has nothing to do with the 'bitter' remarks. Gallup's Obama+9 also has nothing, as of today's polling, to do with the 'bitter' remarks.
Both pollsters say initial polling about the remarks say they havent done much. They caution with the initially, and say to look to coming polls to see if that changes.
CoolTrick cites the Ras Clinton+1, and says:
how in the world can you say it hasnt had an effect? by citing both pollsters who say the exact same thing, the change to Clinton+1 in Ras had nothing to do with the bitter remarks, and that initial indications say it won't change much, but to look to upcoming polls and to the GE polls to see if it hurts him. thats how.
now, this is not to say it won't actually hurt him, and that the polls will show this hurting his numbers in the coming polls. that is perfectly debatable and probably be true, but its debatable. but to say today's polls show any movement based on it is 100% (per the pollsters themselves) wrong.
CoolTrick said:
The story broke Friday morning. McCain and Hillary had a statement before noon the same day.
Posted April 11, 2008 | 06:43 AM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
So, yes, you are wrong.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Exactly.typhonsentra said:
He even saw a point raise the day after on this.
If there's no change by tomorrow I'd say it's as much a nonstory as the man in Penn on FoxNews said it was.
Frank the Great
Banned
why the hell are you guys arguing about whether it has had an effect or not? what will it accomplish?
just fucking wait and see, my god. this is painful.
just fucking wait and see, my god. this is painful.
typhonsentra
Banned
It broke Friday morning.CoolTrick said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
It was also mentioned and discussed on all the primetime cable news shows on (On Fox at least, that's all I checked for that day). Millions upon millions of people heard about it on the first day alone.
Uh....Wow. Astounding.
You just equated "less" to "no.
That is far, far different than
Even just the latter part of the first sentence.
:lol :lol You people are so caught up in trying to prove me wrong you forget that it's not about what you or I think.
Obama's standing was hurt by Rev. Wright in his favorability, with independants and conservatives, and with white, rural voters.
FACT.
Whether or not you believe this is up to you.
You just equated "less" to "no.
That is far, far different than
.
Even just the latter part of the first sentence.
:lol :lol You people are so caught up in trying to prove me wrong you forget that it's not about what you or I think.
Obama's standing was hurt by Rev. Wright in his favorability, with independants and conservatives, and with white, rural voters.
FACT.
Whether or not you believe this is up to you.
kkaabboomm
Member
CoolTrick said:
this i would say is a very reasonable statement. debatable, as always, as how long this will hurt him, but reasonable none the less. all i was pointing out was that citing the Ras Clinton+1 as evidence the bitter remark has already begun to impact him is false. Will it impact him? probably. has that shown up yet? no.
Frank the Great
Banned
CoolTrick said:
but why argue with them? what will it accomplish?
just wait to see if it has an effect, and if it does then you can rub your dick in their faces. until then though bickering about it like this is ridiculous and ruins the thread. needs to stop.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked