-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Presidential Polling Thread (ALL presidential polling data goes here)
- Thread starter Incognito
- Start date
- Status
Father_Brain
Banned
Amir0x said:
Indeed. HITLERY is clearly as bad as the worst Republicans, and the biggest problem in DC is "partisan bullshit," for which both parties are equally to blame. I'm glad your views are so thoroughly researched and well-grounded in reality.
Amir0x said:
Stay classy. People like you and others in this thread are EXACTLY the reason folks end up gravitating towards Hillary. But by all means, if you feel more of a man by calling her "bitch," "whore," or any number of demeaning insults, then fire away.
In other news:
Super Tuesday won't decide nominations
Bu bu bu Momentum!!!
I think a lot of people tend to forget that on the Democratic side, delegates are rewarded proportionally. Say, if Obama finishes 2-4% behind Clinton in California the delegate count is nearly a wash. Illinois will reap Obama a large amount of delegates as New York will to Clinton. Buckle your seatbelts...
worldrunover
Member
Recent poll from gay crackheads:
Obama: 82%
Hillary 19%
That other dude who's totally cute: 1%
Take from that what you will.
Obama: 82%
Hillary 19%
That other dude who's totally cute: 1%
Take from that what you will.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
worldrunover said:
What?
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tamanon said:
To play devils shill as I'm so good at doing
how is that better than a race specific derogatory remark or a sexuality based specific remark?Stoney Mason said:To play devils shill as I'm so good at doing
Because it's not a remark born out of maliciousness for the race or sex as much as its born out of the maliciousness of the person.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tamanon said:
Not that I really care on this specific issue as it's a private forum and they can have whatever consistent or inconsistent rules they want but I've often heard the comment from a few white people I've known in certain cases that when they use the N word they are speaking out on the bad qualities in a black person and not the race. That just happens to be what you call black people who exhibit those qualities.
topsyturvy
Member
calling a girl/woman bitch is just as bad as calling someone a racial slur.
I wouldn't want to be called a bitch out the blue. :/
I wouldn't want to be called a bitch out the blue. :/
The terms "Bitch" and "whore" don't invoke nearly 600 years of slavery, indentured servitude, murder, rape, dismemberment, segregation, and other profound crimes against humanity. They can say they're only "speaking out on the bad qualities in a black person," but that's a little disingenuous, and who are they to say it's okay? Can anyone really say that invocation of such a terrible history with racially derogatory hate speech is okay, regardless of the intent? I don't think so.Stoney Mason said:
It's different.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Dolphin said:
I don't disagree. But then neither does "fag" nor "gay" which are also banned.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Dolphin said:
1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose said:
Bitch doesn't exactly have a proud history either.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Dolphin said:
Agreed. It wasn't used to characterize all women as the n word was.
But I still argue that it still isn't a generally acceptable name to call a women just as whore or ho still isn't to me, especially in a modern context where it is arguable those same qualities are generally not seen as a negative when men exhibit them. I'd prefer people call out and define those qualities rather than use an ambiguous catch all term that many women are bound to find offensive. In other words I have no idea what a bitch is.
Going to be a bit rambly, but here goes...
I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I think that women, men, (and the trannies) ought to be treated as equally as possible culturally, legally, and economically. In that sense, I do find it a bit troubling with how quickly the conversation jumps to her physical appearance, the obsessions of certain pundits and castration with regards to her, etc. that make me wonder what's going on behind that.
I've seen that when someone chimes in with a comment about how they perceive misogyny, they are greeted with a litany of disparaging comments saying, more or less, "Yeah, it's because we hate women that we don't like Hillary," with the sarcasm dripping.
I don't think that anyone here actively hates women, or even believes that women are incapable of being president. I believe that people here have an objection to Hillary personally, not based upon her gender, but upon her past positions, what they've heard about her, etc. - but I don't believe that it is predicated on her gender.
Still, I don't see it as appropriate. I see it as essentially the equivalent of there being a gay male running for president in 2100 - let's say we've advanced that far by then - and people on message boards (or their equivalent at that time) are calling him whatever epithet is in vogue for homosexuals at that time, trotting out millennia-old stereotypes to mock him, etc.
Perhaps they do oppose this man on his positions - but their attacks against him are not attacks against his positions, but attacks against him as a person; as him being a homosexual. While I believe that the motives of the attacks on Hillary are based in disagreements with her - or sometimes antipathy, or both - I don't believe that attacks that are based entirely upon her personal appearance, claims that she is "bitch," etc. are appropriate.
Oh, and one caveat - I do recognize that many people are able to articulate their views on why they actually dislike Hillary when they've been confronted about this. I also don't believe in confronting anyone myself - I refer to myself, my friends, my dog (she is!), etc. as all manner of curse words both in jest and in earnest. I don't believe it is right for political discourse, but it's not like I keep up my end of that bargain when we're talking about certain Republicans. :lol
I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I think that women, men, (and the trannies) ought to be treated as equally as possible culturally, legally, and economically. In that sense, I do find it a bit troubling with how quickly the conversation jumps to her physical appearance, the obsessions of certain pundits and castration with regards to her, etc. that make me wonder what's going on behind that.
I've seen that when someone chimes in with a comment about how they perceive misogyny, they are greeted with a litany of disparaging comments saying, more or less, "Yeah, it's because we hate women that we don't like Hillary," with the sarcasm dripping.
I don't think that anyone here actively hates women, or even believes that women are incapable of being president. I believe that people here have an objection to Hillary personally, not based upon her gender, but upon her past positions, what they've heard about her, etc. - but I don't believe that it is predicated on her gender.
Still, I don't see it as appropriate. I see it as essentially the equivalent of there being a gay male running for president in 2100 - let's say we've advanced that far by then - and people on message boards (or their equivalent at that time) are calling him whatever epithet is in vogue for homosexuals at that time, trotting out millennia-old stereotypes to mock him, etc.
Perhaps they do oppose this man on his positions - but their attacks against him are not attacks against his positions, but attacks against him as a person; as him being a homosexual. While I believe that the motives of the attacks on Hillary are based in disagreements with her - or sometimes antipathy, or both - I don't believe that attacks that are based entirely upon her personal appearance, claims that she is "bitch," etc. are appropriate.
Oh, and one caveat - I do recognize that many people are able to articulate their views on why they actually dislike Hillary when they've been confronted about this. I also don't believe in confronting anyone myself - I refer to myself, my friends, my dog (she is!), etc. as all manner of curse words both in jest and in earnest. I don't believe it is right for political discourse, but it's not like I keep up my end of that bargain when we're talking about certain Republicans. :lol
jamesinclair
Banned
When do we start getting Super Tuesday Polls?
I need to decide which party's primary Im voting in.
I need to decide which party's primary Im voting in.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Tamanon said:
Wow. That's more bumps than a Puddle Of Mudd Dressing Room.
PhoenixDark
Banned
People harping on those old polls are crazy. Edwards isn't going to get 15-20% in most states lol, unlike in the polls. By the 5th I'd expect Obama to have healthy numbers everywhere. He doesn't need to win the big states - he just needs to take enough delegates to stay competitive. He's not going to lose NY by a huge margin imo; he'll get a nice amount of delegates. Same with California.
I expect him to do well in the south and mid west, as well as in more moderate places like Arizona and Kansas
I expect him to do well in the south and mid west, as well as in more moderate places like Arizona and Kansas
Father_Brain
Banned
Amir0x said:
Honestly, I was more interested in getting you to defend the latter point than the former. Doesn't look like you're eager to do either, though.
jamesinclair said:
I find real clear politics to be the best source for polling data. Here are a few links for average super Tuesday state polls. There are more states listed on the site.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/california-primary.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_york-primary.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_jersey-primary.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
Obama closes to within 6 points nationally... first national poll conducted entirely after SC. Race was even closer on Monday & Tuesday, "within a few points".
Obama closes to within 6 points nationally... first national poll conducted entirely after SC. Race was even closer on Monday & Tuesday, "within a few points".
Essentially we are still looking at very old poll data. Everyone wanted to wait until after SC to repoll and now alot of people will need to repoll again without having Edwards in the race. It will be this weekend before we see anything concrete I would imagine.
My opinion on Edwards decision is changing. Chaos in the polls and a shakeup is in the underdogs favor. Clinton may wind up getting the Edwards vote and trouncing Obama, but the fact that a shakeup happened is in Obamas advantage. Clinton would have prefered to maintain the status quo. A shakeup can only be good for Obama.
My opinion on Edwards decision is changing. Chaos in the polls and a shakeup is in the underdogs favor. Clinton may wind up getting the Edwards vote and trouncing Obama, but the fact that a shakeup happened is in Obamas advantage. Clinton would have prefered to maintain the status quo. A shakeup can only be good for Obama.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...lection_2008_massachusetts_democratic_primary
First Mass. Poll after Kennedy Endorsement
Hillary 43%
Obama 37%
Edwards 11%
Some polls were showing Obama down THIRTY POINTS before the endorsement and SC.
First Mass. Poll after Kennedy Endorsement
Hillary 43%
Obama 37%
Edwards 11%
Some polls were showing Obama down THIRTY POINTS before the endorsement and SC.
Some of the other numbers from the poll are somewhat telling as well
It looked like Obama had a lot of room to make up prior to Super Tuesday a couple weeks ago but his large margin of victory in SC and Kennedy's endorsement really have helped out a ton. I am still not sure he could squeak out a win on Super Tuesday but all signs point to the fact that Super Tuesday will not decide the Democratic nominee.
It looked like Obama had a lot of room to make up prior to Super Tuesday a couple weeks ago but his large margin of victory in SC and Kennedy's endorsement really have helped out a ton. I am still not sure he could squeak out a win on Super Tuesday but all signs point to the fact that Super Tuesday will not decide the Democratic nominee.
Looks like some GOP dont like McCain
Calling it his "non-concession speech," talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a fresh round of attacks Wednesday on newly-minted GOP frontrunner John McCain the latest indication the Arizona senator is likely to witness a backlash from some conservative quarters as he seeks to wrap up his party's nomination.
Limbaugh, a longtime conservative critic of McCain, said the senator's rise is largely the result of "uninspiring" candidates, and a "fractured" party base.
"There was no figure in our roster of candidates who rose up to challenge him or galvanize conservative support," Limbaugh said on his daily radio program. "All the candidates on our side, for various reasons, are uninspiring or worse and so, just as I predicted, the base has fractured." -rush limbaugh
whatever the case, I cant imagine any hardcore right winger winning this race. You need a moderate.. and even then....
Calling it his "non-concession speech," talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a fresh round of attacks Wednesday on newly-minted GOP frontrunner John McCain the latest indication the Arizona senator is likely to witness a backlash from some conservative quarters as he seeks to wrap up his party's nomination.
Limbaugh, a longtime conservative critic of McCain, said the senator's rise is largely the result of "uninspiring" candidates, and a "fractured" party base.
"There was no figure in our roster of candidates who rose up to challenge him or galvanize conservative support," Limbaugh said on his daily radio program. "All the candidates on our side, for various reasons, are uninspiring or worse and so, just as I predicted, the base has fractured." -rush limbaugh
whatever the case, I cant imagine any hardcore right winger winning this race. You need a moderate.. and even then....
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Incognito said:
wow. honestly. didnt expect that.
BotoxAgent
Member
hey, what's the overall picture for McCain in terms of finance/fund raising? It seemed like last summer his campaign was almost broke.
PhoenixDark
Banned
harSon said:
His shift starts once he gets out of class. Mine just began
These quick polls don't mean much, as I warned with the NH ones. They're deceptive right now, and I'd wait a few more days before getting excited. Obama has to make up ground in nearly every big primary state. I don't know if he has enough time to do it; if the NH primary happened 2-3 days later than scheduled, I'd imagine Obama would have won. Does he have enough time for super tuesday? I don't know. But I do know that Edwards dropping out is going to hurt him with white voters; originally I thought Obama would take the southern states, but now I'd expect Hillary to sweep them all except Georgia.
PhoenixDark said:
ok here some more info
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, its now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35%. (see recent daily numbers). Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last nights data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even.
4 days of polling clinton 42 obama 35. was over 11 points last week and almost 20 befor that. and lats nights polling with out edwards had them dead even.
Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008 3 day poll.
todays data not out yet but yesterday obama had slashed a 9-11 point lead to 6 points. be interesting to see data with out edwards included.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
next you are so wrong on southern states. Hillary has no chance
here is georgia has a example. poll released 1/30
obama 52
hillarry 36
and this is without edwards. seems edwards camp was anti-hillary and moved right over to obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_MajorityOpinionGADEMpoll.html
PhoenixDark
Banned
Lefty42o said:ok here some more info
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, its now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35%. (see recent daily numbers). Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last nights data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even.
4 days of polling clinton 42 obama 35. was over 11 points last week and almost 20 befor that. and lats nights polling with out edwards had them dead even.
Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008 3 day poll.
todays data not out yet but yesterday obama had slashed a 9-11 point lead to 6 points. be interesting to see data with out edwards included.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
next you are so wrong on southern states. Hillary has no chance
here is georgia has a example. poll released 1/30
obama 52
hillarry 36
and this is without edwards. seems edwards camp was anti-hillary and moved right over to obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_MajorityOpinionGADEMpoll.html
I'm not particularly interested in national polls - this isn't a national election, it's a state by state primary right now.
With respect to the south, I already stated Obama would win Georgia - but I see Hillary taking everything else. She's been ahead in the other southern states for some time now, and the polls aren't moving much. Obama is not going to get trounced in Tennessee as the old polls suggest. As I said he won't get trounced anywhere imo. But I don't think he has enough time to make up the difference in these states, and Edwards being gone doesn't help in my estimates.
\Rur0ni said:Glad to see the polls on Georgia. I'm definitely going out and voting though. As well as getting my family that doesn't vote to do so.
yeah Georgia is impressive. Obama had a 3 point lead at the begging of the year. 6 point lead before sc primary and yesterday it had shot up to 16 percent with kennedy endorsement and Edwards dropping out.
poll Date Sample Obama Clinton Spread
RCP Average 01/07 to 01/30 - 43.0 34.7 Obama +8.3
InsiderAdvantage 01/30 - 01/30 301 LV 52 36 Obama +16.0
Rasmussen 01/22 - 01/22 571 LV 41 35 Obama +6.0
Mason-Dixon 01/07 - 01/10 400 LV 36 33 Obama +3.0
PhoenixDark said:
national polls matter. don't ignore them
next georgia is important cause the white vote from edwards went over to obama. that contradicts your statement. next we have no other polls to show data so your assumption is based off of no facts. and is contradicted by the details within the georgia poll.
next the california poll mirrors the national poll and georgia poll. shows a huge jump for Obama.
so instead of blowing off the data provide some counter data to support your view. its ok i will wait. cause there is none.
- Status