Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on April 17, 2012, 02:45:45 PM
-
Because Gallup says Romney 48% vs. Obama 43%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)
-
Not sure I have ever seen a newcomer leading an incumbent that badly this early.
Gallup is also not exactly Foxnews or Brent Bozell (with a Right bias). They lean pretty middle of the road like Rasmussen. Not exactly the most accurate polling agency, but the fact that 2 middle of the road polls like these showing a big lead for Romney has to worry the Dems. Romney is not even the official nominee yet.
-
Because Gallup says Romney 48% vs. Obama 43%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)
I think Gallup and Rasmussen are two of the most reputable in addition to the RealClearPolitics average which is a good gauge despite it's inclusion of obviously partisan polls (like the hack pollsters at "Public Policy Polling {PPP}" and the pollsters of FoxNews which can be Republican-heavy). The RCP average still has The Pharaoh up by 3.
This election is going to come down to a handful of specific states so you have to take that into consideration over national polling. The five key states to watch are Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The next President will have to win in all of those states in my opinion.
-
I feel like most people are sheep and follow the shepherd. Gallup-like polls? Those are the shepherds.
You get enough people in swing states reading those poll numbers, this election swings away from Obama easily.
-
I feel like most people are sheep and follow the shepherd. Gallup-like polls? Those are the shepherds.
You get enough people in swing states reading those poll numbers, this election swings away from Obama easily.
Romney can win this election but it will be anything but easy.
And he's going to have to use that same vitriolic, political machine that he used against Gingrich. Everybody says that they hate negative campaigns but the fact of the matter is that it works. McCain tried to play nice with The ONE (and the Democrat media) four years ago. Failure.
-
Romney can win this election but it will be anything but easy.
And he's going to have to use that same vitriolic, political machine that he used against Gingrich. Everybody says that they hate negative campaigns but the fact of the matter is that it works. McCain tried to play nice with The ONE (and the Democrat media) four years ago. Failure.
Sarah Palin was a pretty big factor in that failure.
-
Sarah Palin was a pretty big factor in that failure.
Just another McCain decision, if you don't mind me stating the obvious.
-
Just another McCain decision, if you don't mind me stating the obvious.
Sure, Palin was McCain's decision and thus his fault. But I was just pointing out that his decision to play nice was not the only (and maybe not even the major) factor that resulted in his campaign's failure.
-
Sarah Palin was a pretty big factor in that failure.
She actually brought in a ton of conservative voters that otherwise would not have voted.
Before Palin, McCain was trailing by 15-19% points. After the convention and her selection, he had almost pulled even.
I think the fact that John McCain was the nominee was more the problem than Palin being the VP.
-
Sarah Palin was a pretty big factor in that failure.
There is some merit to that factor BUT the conservative base liked her then...and still does. I blame the defeat almost entirely on McCain and his campaign. He was trying to run a bromidic, old-school-establishment campaign in the 21st Century against a rock-star and he looked like the languescent politician that he is.
-
There is some merit to that factor BUT the conservative base liked her then...and still does. I blame the defeat almost entirely on McCain and his campaign. He was trying to run a bromidic, old-school-establishment campaign in the 21st Century against a rock-star and he looked like the languescent politician that he is.
THIS guy gets it.
-
She actually brought in a ton of conservative voters that otherwise would not have voted.
Before Palin, McCain was trailing by 15-19% points. After the convention and her selection, he had almost pulled even.
I think the fact that John McCain was the nominee was more the problem than Palin being the VP.
There is some merit to that factor BUT the conservative base liked her then...and still does. I blame the defeat almost entirely on McCain and his campaign. He was trying to run a bromidic, old-school-establishment campaign in the 21st Century against a rock-star and he looked like the languescent politician that he is.
Palin initially gave the campaign a boost, especially considering that McCain came off as too moderate, and so Palin was able to counteract that with a more conservative stance. But as time went on she did more harm than good. Much of the harm was allegedly due to members of McCain's campaign anonymously releasing negative information about Palin (such as the absurd amount of funds spent on her campaign wardrobe), but Palin also contributed to the damage by showing a lack of political knowledge in prime time interviews.
Add onto that the (irrelevant) distractions from her daughter (which aren't inherently her fault, but they still played a part) and you've got to lay a fair portion of the blame at her feet.
-
Palin initially gave the campaign a boost, especially considering that McCain came off as too moderate, and so Palin was able to counteract that with a more conservative stance. But as time went on she did more harm than good. Much of the harm was allegedly due to members of McCain's campaign anonymously releasing negative information about Palin (such as the absurd amount of funds spent on her campaign wardrobe), but Palin also contributed to the damage by showing a lack of political knowledge in prime time interviews.
Add onto that the (irrelevant) distractions from her daughter (which aren't inherently her fault, but they still played a part) and you've got to lay a fair portion of the blame at her feet.
His campaign showed an amazing lack of judgement in vetting her for reception by the general electorate agreed, but, despite the negatives the conservative base still love her. I'm not a Palin apologist however at the end of the day the proverbial buck stops at McCain.
-
Palin initially gave the campaign a boost, especially considering that McCain came off as too moderate, and so Palin was able to counteract that with a more conservative stance. But as time went on she did more harm than good. Much of the harm was allegedly due to members of McCain's campaign anonymously releasing negative information about Palin (such as the absurd amount of funds spent on her campaign wardrobe), but Palin also contributed to the damage by showing a lack of political knowledge in prime time interviews.
Add onto that the (irrelevant) distractions from her daughter (which aren't inherently her fault, but they still played a part) and you've got to lay a fair portion of the blame at her feet.
The end result still is that she ultimately bumped him up in the long run. McCain had been trailing the entire Summer and was down 15% points in July (before the RNC). After the Convention on Sept 1st, McCain got a bounce to the other direction was leading by 10% points. Although it did not stick, he lost the election by 7% which is much better than he would have done without bringing in Palin's electorate. Love her or Hate her, she ultimately helped him. McCain was just that bad of a candidate. It ultimately was his own fault he lost being the neocon and dry person that he is.
-
The end result still is that she ultimately bumped him up in the long run. McCain had been trailing the entire Summer and was down 15% points in July (before the RNC). After the Convention on Sept 1st, McCain got a bounce to the other direction was leading by 10% points. Although it did not stick, he lost the election by 7% which is much better than he would have done without bringing in Palin's electorate. Love her or Hate her, she ultimately helped him. McCain was just that bad of a candidate. It ultimately was his own fault he lost being the neocon and dry person that he is.
Maybe, maybe not. She definitely gave him an initial boost. Her favorability rating right after her RNC acceptance speech was higher than both Obama's and McCain's. But then she experienced drastic drops in those favorability polls after her Katie Couric interview, after the Biden debate, after negative press, etc. Some of the polls indicate that, at times, she would lose 10 points in a matter of days. The electorate that she had initially brought in were losing faith quickly.
Had Palin maintained higher polling numbers, McCain might have won. But she didn't, and a large part of the reason why she didn't was her own fault. McCain's campaign could have changed the manner in which they prepped her and handled her in the press, but ultimately, her own inexperience and lack of political knowledge (and the media's attention to these flaws) were the largest reasons for her downward trend in the polls.
With that being said, sure, she gave McCain's campaign a boost that it may have not otherwise seen, but then she also dismantled that boost to a very large degree, if not entirely. McCain was not a great candidate to begin with by any means, but his campaign showed signs of potential success with the initial addition of Palin based on polls. That glimmer of hope faded as Palin's shortcomings came to light.
-
Maybe, maybe not. She definitely gave him an initial boost. Her favorability rating right after her RNC acceptance speech was higher than both Obama's and McCain's. But then she experienced drastic drops in those favorability polls after her Katie Couric interview, after the Biden debate, after negative press, etc. Some of the polls indicate that, at times, she would lose 10 points in a matter of days. The electorate that she had initially brought in were losing faith quickly.
Had Palin maintained higher polling numbers, McCain might have won. But she didn't, and a large part of the reason why she didn't was her own fault. McCain's campaign could have changed the manner in which they prepped her and handled her in the press, but ultimately, her own inexperience and lack of political knowledge (and the media's attention to these flaws) were the largest reasons for her downward trend in the polls.
With that being said, sure, she gave McCain's campaign a boost that it may have not otherwise seen, but then she also dismantled that boost to a very large degree, if not entirely. McCain was not a great candidate to begin with by any means, but his campaign showed signs of potential success with the initial addition of Palin based on polls. That glimmer of hope faded as Palin's shortcomings came to light.
Tells me a lot about McCain that his campaign depended that much on the VP pick. That same effect didn't happen to Obama even with Biden being a total dumbass. They totally picked Palin as a shrewd pick to make them look good and she couldn't do enough. What she added in some areas, she lacked in others. It just wasn't enough. Again - that tells me more about McCain than Palin. I look at Palin as the symptom and McCain as the root problem.