Support NeoGAF

[Cheebs]

It's a rolling average and Palin's speech is just one of three nights. Give it time. She will get a good sized bounce.

Most likely. Obama's bounce didn't really take off till the end of the weekend after.

 

[syllogism]

Should be tied this weekend

 

[gcubed]

That makes me realize something. A LOT of young people decided early to vote for Obama but I doubt they follow politics on TV. While McCain's base is older, much more likely to watch tv coverage perhaps?

It doesn't explain why in 2004 Bush and Kerry had near even tv viewership but McCain dwarfed Obama this time when youth support was behind Kerry like Obama and then they were even less passionate so less likely to watch coverage in 2004 rather than 2008 so I am back to square one. There has to be some logic behind it cause it wasn't Palin's night yesterday.

did they do breakdowns by channel? Football leftovers?

 

[Y2Kev]

That's not terrible, but McCain is going to get a bigger bump for his speech because it was less....evil.

 

[Cheebs]

Yup, this reflects the full day after Palin's speech. Looks like McCain is starting to get a normal convention bump.

Which means everyone is going to panic.

It will stabilize before the debate but McCain will continue to go up through the weekend and gaf will panic.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Didn't 9/11 happen on W's watch? Only in America can the political party in question, the one negligent in taking the threat from al qaeda seriously in the first place, show a video montage of 9/11, planes crashing into towers, et al, as some.. ass-backwards way to distinguish themselves as savants on security.

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

 

[Freshmaker]

Can someone explain how McCain got A LOT more viewers than Obama? I understand Palin since she is new and fresh. But McCain destroying Obama's thursday numbers? It is not just football since apparently the cable networks all had increases as well as did ABC.

Only viewing alternative was 90210.

 

[Cooter]

Cheebs, how many viewers did the speech draw?

 

[gcubed]

Only viewing alternative was 90210.

Tango and Cash was on Showtime

 

[typhonsentra]

Cheebs, how many viewers did the speech draw?

I think he's going by preliminary numbers from the networks. We don't know for sure yet but it's pretty surprising regardless.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It will stabilize before the debate but McCain will continue to go up through the weekend and gaf will panic.

Yeah. There's a reason they're called bounces.

Everyone says wait for the debates, but we all know how the debates will be framed. I'm more interested in where this settles in next week, and the voter registration trends.

Gallup commentary in part:

While both conventions are now over, measurement of public reaction to them is not. Results, based on interviewing conducted Sept. 2-4, include just one day of interviewing conducted after Wednesday night's widely viewed acceptance speech by McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Most interviewing Thursday night was conducted before McCain's acceptance speech, so Gallup Poll Daily tracking results will start to reflect its impact in Saturday's report. The full impact of the GOP convention on voter preferences will not be known until Monday's report, the first in which all interviews will have been conducted following the convention's conclusion.

 

[Cheebs]

Yeah. There's a reason they're called bounces.

Everyone says wait for the debates, but we all know how the debates will be framed. I'm more interested in where this settles in next week, and the voter registration trends.

Gallup commentary in part:

People need to remember at his height Obama was up by 8, if McCain is up by 3-5 points come monday that isn't horrible.

 

[nataku]

It will stabilize before the debate but McCain will continue to go up through the weekend and I will panic.

Fixed.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Yeah. There's a reason they're called bounces.

Everyone says wait for the debates, but we all know how the debates will be framed. I'm more interested in where this settles in next week, and the voter registration trends.

Gallup commentary in part:

You still got the voter registration stuff coming?

 

[speculawyer]

Good news . . . investigation moves forward . . . even faster.

Bad news . . . the state Senator doing the investigation's name is "French" :lol


I can already hear the GOP whiners "A FRENCH DEMOCRAT is doing this partisan witchhunt!"

(OK, they might try to avoid the word 'witchhunt'. :lol )

Investigation into Palin Now on Fast Track
Sources Tell ABC News that Report Will Be Released Almost Three Weeks Early
By LEN TEPPER
September 5, 2008

ABC News has exclusively learned that Alaska Senator Hollis French will announce today that he is moving up the release date of his investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her office to get the Alaska public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, fired. The results of the investigation were originally scheduled for release Oct. 31 but will now come almost three weeks earlier, according to sources.

The announcement is set for 9 a.m. AKDT time.
Related
'October Surprise' Over Palin Investigation?
Palin Could Be Deposed in State Probe
More From Brian Ross and the Investigative Team

The Alaska state senator running an investigation of Gov. Palin had accused the McCain campaign of using stall tactics to prevent him from releasing his final report by Oct. 31, four days before the November election.

"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat, appointed the project manager for a bi-partisan State Senate Legislative Counsel Committee investigation.

Palin, who has denied any wrongdoing and has said she has nothing to hide, has hired private lawyers to represent her in the matter.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5734511&page=1

 

[ALeperMessiah]

Tango and Cash was on Showtime

I think Batman Begins was on FX

 

[Cheebs]

Fixed.

I have been warning against freaking out against convention polling sir

 

[Zeliard]

People need to remember at his height Obama was up by 8, if McCain is up by 3-5 points come monday that isn't horrible.

Obama was up by 8 after a 10 point bounce, too, since he was down by 2 at one point. We have to wait for more numbers.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Clinton was ready and willing to go after Bin Laden, and he actually could have sent the order to kill him, but, and I forgot which government branch did this, was prevented from doing so.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

People need to remember at his height Obama was up by 8, if McCain is up by 3-5 points come monday that isn't horrible.

Says you. I'm already writing my first draft of the "I'm moving to Canada" speech should McCain take a lead in the polls.

 

[theviolenthero]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

Your a fucking liar:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp


Please stop with the bullshit, PLEASE!!!

 

[polyh3dron]

I can't imagine that kind of cult of personality celebrity ad coming back to hurt him at all...

Maybe the giant image of Obama could say "This election has never been about me. It’s been about you being me."

"I am Barack Obama, I approve this message, and I'm watching over you [insert laugh]."

Now with Sarah Palin taking over as The Biggest Celebrity In The World (did taht answer surprise you lol) they would look like complete hypocrites doing that. (not that looking like hypocrites has ever stopped them before)

Also, Republican Arguing Point #4080:

Anything bad that has ever happened under the watch of a Republican is always the fault of the previous Democratic President. Anything good that has happened under a Democratic President's watch is thanks to the previous Republican President.

 

[hokahey]

Breaking

Gallup has Obama up by 4!


**dammit beaten!!!**

:lol

 

[typhonsentra]

I have to hand it to the GOP, this is the first week to date I've seen where Obama wasn't the main focus of the campaign. Normally the conservative blogs would be obsessing over him but many of the ones I read didn't even make a post about his appearance on O'Reilly. It's all about Palin and the base loves her.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Your a fucking liar:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp


Please stop with these bullshit as post, PLEASE!!!

I'm going to edit your post and make it appropriate for the person you're responding to:

"Oh Cogent... you delightful rapscallion, you. Keep being adorable."

 

[BrokenFiction]

Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Clinton was ready and willing to go after Bin Laden, and he actually could have sent the order to kill him, but, and I forgot which government branch did this, was prevented from doing so.

The 9/11 commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, provided more details Tuesday on the three aborted attempts to kill bin Laden, based on information gathered during the commission's inquiry.

One of those planned strikes, in Afghanistan in February 1999, was called off because then-White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke warned that it would have risked the lives of visiting officials from the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. counterterrorism ally, Zelikow said.

To this day, the lead CIA official in the field that day believes that "this was a lost opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11," Zelikow said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/911.commission/

 

[theBishop]

Why do you guys pay so much attention to national polls? The election itself isn't even a national poll.

The Only Poll That Matters.

 

[Tamanon]

I guess this is where Palin gets her "lipstick" joke

Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140013

 

[Cooter]

Because state polls usually fall in line pretty close to national polls.

 

[StoOgE]

Gallup

Obama 48 - McCain 44

This does not include last night's speech btw. It was 49-42 yesterday.

right, this is essentiall 2 nights of the convention of the three days. So, its means McCain did 9 points better last night than he was doing on the three day average before, so its probably going to wind up being McCain +2-3 on Saturdays numbers, and then fade after that. We'll see though.

Its still a worthless poll.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

he did try to kill Bin laden but failed(in East Africa), We were actively looking for Bin laden and learning more about the network

and C'mon, It happen about a month after Bill Clinton was in office


Bush had a FAR better chance to prevent the 9/11 attacks, i dont feel like posting all the reasons and opportunities

 

[Stoney Mason]

Why do you guys pay so much attention to national polls? The election itself isn't even a national poll.

The Only Poll That Matters.

National Polls are a good immediate snapshot of the public and at large and have a chance of effecting the local numbers. I do agree though it is always best to keep an even keel and keep one eye on the national numbers and one eye on the state numbers and as the election gets closer keep an even tighter eye on the state by state numbers.

 

[speculawyer]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch?

Yes . . . 30 days into his presidency. Obviously all his fault. Of course when Bush his hit 9 months into his presidency, that is also Clinton's fault according to you. Nice consistent logic there.

Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing?

No, actually he passed a series of anti-terror laws before the GOP was even thinking about terrorism. He had to struggle to get anti-terror laws passed . . . slowed down by such groups as the NRA that didn't think the federal government should be able to require chemical taggants put into explosives. (Wow!)

When Clinton launched missiles against Osama, the GOP whine and said he was just 'wagging the dog' to try to draw attention away from the Monica scandal. When Bill was working on Terrorism, the GOP was obsessed with Bill's penis. It was truly amazing.

I'll even confess to being wrong about Clinton's anti-terror moves. Clinton pushed to require government access into encryption systems and as a Libertarian, I felt that was wrong and fought against it. Bill Clinton was smarter than me in seeing that terrorism was more of a threat than I realized.

Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

Yeah, In far-right blog fantasyland.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

Bullshit. Clinton was waaaaaaaaaay better on terror than anyone.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Because state polls usually fall in line pretty close to national polls.

Only in the case of toss-up states and they vary based on the particular situation of the individual candidates within that state.

 

[tanod]

Because state polls usually fall in line pretty close to national polls.

:lol

 

[Fatalah]

Why do you guys pay so much attention to national polls? The election itself isn't even a national poll.

The Only Poll That Matters.

I've never visted electoral-vote.com, do you go to fivethirtyeight.com? The creator being a partner of Baseball Prospectus carries the world of weight for me personally ;-)

 

[Cooter]

Like you said Stoney, national polls are a quick snapshot about trends and where opinions are going. If someone gets a decent size bounce nationally they will typically get one in most states also.

 

[polyh3dron]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Quaeda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

Reposting this because I think people missed it before,

Republican Arguing Point #4080:

Anything bad that has ever happened under the watch of a Republican is always the fault of the previous Democratic President. Anything good that has happened under a Democratic President's watch is thanks to the previous Republican President. This is fact.

 

[NullPointer]

:lol

I still don't want to believe that the McCain crew/handlers/RNC techs/whoever could be this stupid. Not only stupid, but big-screen, projected stupid, to millions around the world.

I actually feel sorry for them at this point.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It was the prince of effing UAE with Bin Laden. Good luck trying to tell their government that we killed their prince in an airstrike to kill OBL. :lol

Also, Clinton caught the person responsible for the first WTC bombing.

Also, also, Clinton was the first president to spend the most money on counterterrorism.

 

[3rdman]

Didn't the first bombing of the World Trade Center happen under Clinton's watch? Didn't Al Queda grow in power under his watch while he pretty much did nothing? Didn't Bill have the opportunity to take out Bin Laden and his gang and decided against it?

The answers to all of these questions is yes.

You are flat out wrong. It was Clinton originally who did not take the threat seriously in the first place. W didn't either until 9/11, but Clinton didn't do shit while he was in office. Way to ignore the facts.

That is a crock of SHIT! But don't believe us...instead why not ask the head of counter-terrorism at the time, Richard Clarke. Although he saw mistakes by Clinton, he tried desperately to get Bin Laden. In fact, according to Clarke, Clinton had become a bit obsessed with Bin Laden by his second term and had tried to pass that urgency to Bush.

A lot of the complaints about Clinton revolve an incident where he "had him in his sights" and didn't "pull the trigger" and that wasn't even his fault. CIA and FBI couldn't agree that Bin Laden was in the room and it was for that reason that the order wasn't given. By the way, the CIA had (for years before Bush took office) had standing order from the President to kill Bin Laden on site....you really don't know what you are talking about.

Also, for all the crap he needlessly gets for the first attempt on WT towers, at least they got the fucker as opposed to this administration.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I've never visted electoral-vote.com, do you go to fivethirtyeight.com? The creator being a partner of Baseball Prospectus carries the world of weight for me personally ;-)

I know GAF loves the guy and his model seems to be very successful with baseball but personally I have a hard time relying on the site as I don't quite understand the methodology behind some of his numbers. I'm most likely completely wrong of course but I kinda prefer to use a mix of sources.

 

[theBishop]

I've never visted electoral-vote.com, do you go to fivethirtyeight.com? The creator being a partner of Baseball Prospectus carries the world of weight for me personally ;-)

The "Votemaster" at Electoral-vote is Andrew Tanenbaum. He's a computer science legend for developing the Minix kernel, micro-kernel flamewars with Linus Torvalds, and writing some of the best textbooks around in the topics of operating systems and networking.

 

[jmdajr]

Interesting about Texas. As the minority community grows it will probably be a democratic state soon.

I know in Houston its really close to 50/50

It was great to see The Clintons and Obama stop by.

 

[Fatalah]

Guys stop it! We're really getting away from the real issues at hand in this election! STOP IT RIGHT THIS INSTANT!

Now.

Did you guys see Sarah Palin's daughter lick her hand and pet the baby! OH MY GOSH!

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I know GAF loves the guy and his model seems to be very successful with baseball but personally I have a hard time relying on the site as I don't quite understand the methodology behind some of his numbers. I'm most likely completely wrong of course but I kinda prefer to use a mix of sources.

I'm quite curious to see how accurate electoral-vote will be when the election is over.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Reposting this because I think people missed it before,

Republican Arguing Point #4080:

Anything bad that has ever happened under the watch of a Republican is always the fault of the previous Democratic President. Anything good that has happened under a Democratic President's watch is thanks to the previous Republican President. This is fact.

No, that's not the point. The point is, all of it is blamed on Bush while none is placed on the Democrat at all. Bill Clinton didn't do shit after the USS Cole was bombed either.

 

[reilo]

Rasmussen:

Remember, moreover, as I've said many times, that a bounce is usually just a bounce -- meaning that it is something ephemeral which will fade fairly quickly. While the effects of various sorts of news events are difficult to disentangle from one another, I would guess that if McCain can't close to at least a rough tie in the tracking polls over the weekend, we will most likely see Obama a couple of points ahead by a week from today, once the race has a chance to stabilize a little bit.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/crackin-trackin-poll.html

 

[GhaleonEB]

moving to next page

 

[polyh3dron]

No, that's not the point. The point is, all of it is blamed on Bush while none is placed on the Democrat at all. Bill Clinton didn't do shit after the USS Cole was bombed either.

:lol