Does Cali really think the Wright thing isn't an issue for voters?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Granted, it's from the beginning of the month - but it shows that Obama's standing was, in fact, damaged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us...oll.html?fta=y

He moved from an aura of untouchable inevitability - to one of vulnerability. Not all shifts are instantly reflected as changed votes. The fact is that there are now doubts about Obama in circulation - defensible, grounded doubts about his judgment.

Also, national polling doesn't always tell the critical story. Watch - Obama will lose Florida. When he does it will turn out that a higher percentage of Jewish Democrats voted against him than ever have voted against a Democratic Presidential candidate. Then pay attention to working class whites in battlegrounds like Ohio and Michigan.

Uh...that's a poll on whom you "think" will win the nomination, not whom you want.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, it has been widely proclaimed in the media, that American Jews are organizing against Obama.

No shocker there. He hasn't shown his bona fides that he is a zionist.

I had lunch last week with a Jewish friend who supports Obama and is somewhat influential locally. He said most all Jews he knows across the country, democrats practially the whole bunch of them, are voting McCain. He's trying hard to disuade them, though.

Don't say I didn't tell you this would happen. Obama only exacerbated his problem here by covenanting to withdraw form Iraq in 12 mos. whatever the consequences to anyone.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Granted, it's from the beginning of the month - but it shows that Obama's standing was, in fact, damaged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us...oll.html?fta=y

He moved from an aura of untouchable inevitability - to one of vulnerability. Not all shifts are instantly reflected as changed votes. The fact is that there are now doubts about Obama in circulation - defensible, grounded doubts about his judgment.

Also, national polling doesn't always tell the critical story. Watch - Obama will lose Florida. When he does it will turn out that a higher percentage of Jewish Democrats voted against him than ever have voted against a Democratic Presidential candidate. Then pay attention to working class whites in battlegrounds like Ohio and Michigan.

I already said his daily polling numbers dropped immediately after the initial appearance of Wright and after the reemergence of Wright. You are attempting to bolster your claim with a poll taken within the period that I already acknowledged was affected? I know you can do better than this.

To show that Wright had an impact, you need to show me a lasting impact (otherwise, of what value is your claim?). I have shown you polling over a 3 month period, and you have responded with a poll from a few days.

Furthermore, as Chino noted, the poll you posted doesn't even ask who the respondent is voting for. This is a very bad attempt, Oxcoug.

[Oxcoug]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nt/charts.html

Note: in early March Obama has a solid 5 pt advantage over McCain. In early May he got that back to a 4 pt, but never back to its previous strength. Today it's less than two pts.

That's pretty conclusive - something hurt Obama bt early March and today. OK, several somethings.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nt/charts.html

Note: in early March Obama has a solid 5 pt advantage over McCain. In early May he got that back to a 4 pt, but never back to its previous strength. Today it's less than two pts.

That's pretty conclusive - something hurt Obama bt early March and today. OK, several somethings.

"Pretty conclusive?" Have you given up on all rational thought? It is conclusive that the polls have fluctuated, and it is conclusive that Obama's polling was affected negatively for a short period of time following Wright's initial emergence and his reemergence (which I already said). Other than that, what is conclusive about Wright? You are trying to say it that a dip recently in his numbers is tied to Wright. Why? Did you notice that Clinton's have dipped almost exactly in lockstep with Obama's recently? Maybe Wright is hurting her polling numbers too?

Of course, this isn't even an attempt to present evidence of your initial claim (that Wright is hurting Obama with independents).

You are all over the place. Stay focused here.

[Oxcoug]

Sentences like this are fun for me: "have you given up on all rational thought?"

Nice hyperbolic reflex, but I assure you Sister Cali, there is no departure from rational thought in my previous post. Obama's lead from early March to late May was reduced by more than half. What's the rational explanation?

Well....

Rev Wright is one. Stupid remarks about guns, religion and small towns another. Effective campaigning from John McCain is certainly not one - so we have to look to Obama negatives, not McCain positives.

Doesn't get much more rational than that. But keep trying. I'm sure you've got some other exclamatory, nonsensical phrase you like to throw around when you're losing ground.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Sentences like this are fun for me: "have you given up on all rational thought?"

Nice hyperbolic reflex, but I assure you Sister Cali, there is no departure from rational thought in my previous post. Obama's lead from early March to late May was reduced by more than half. What's the rational explanation?

Well....

Rev Wright is one. Stupid remarks about guns, religion and small towns another. Effective campaigning from John McCain is certainly not one - so we have to look to Obama negatives, not McCain positives.

Doesn't get much more rational than that. But keep trying. I'm sure you've got some other exclamatory, nonsensical phrase you like to throw around when you're losing ground.

Let's review. You said Wright conclusively has had and will have an effect on Obama in the general election. You cited anecdotal evidence for support. You were called on it, at which point you claimed that it was superior anecdotal evidence, because the person you cited was a REALLY big deal. A MUCH bigger deal than an ice cream store owner.

When challenged on the use of anecdotal evidence, you then refused to provide any explanation as to why it mattered at all (likely realizing it is a logical fallacy), and then claimed that independents were flocking away from Obama. I then pointed out that according to Gallup (which has tracked the issue on a daily basis since Wright came into the picture), Obama has actually improved a point over that time period.

You didn't ever bother to address that issue, choosing instead to counter with a poll of your own that didn't ask who people would vote for and which was taken in the days immediately following Wright's emergence (which I had already indicated was a period that was briefly affected). I challenged the silliness of your post, so you moved on to a new poll that shows that Obama has gone down relative to McCain, but doesn't show any indication that it is tied to Wright. I pointed out that Clinton has also tracked along the same lines as Obama, which would strongly suggest that the trend has nothing to do with Wright and may be more of a reflection of the tough campaign going on between Obama and Clinton.

And now you are surprised that I question your absence of rational thought? You have yet to make a rational argument in this entire thread. Don't be shocked when you are called on it (and please come with something better than "Sister Cali" as an insult- do you find "sister" to be a derogatory phrase?).

This garbage may impress people on CB, but count me underwhelmed.

[Oxcoug]

Oh no. You're underwhelmed. How devastating. I was so keen to impress you. And ahhh... the Cougarboard smack. The last (or first?) retreat of an angry Cougarguarder. Damn that Cougarboard and all its simpletons.

Relax, Sis. Who ever said it was an insult? And why would you take it as one?

And don't get all carried away like you won some point by "calling" me on anecdotal evidence - I fronted from the beginning that it was anecdotal. And if you don't get that not all anecdotal evidence is equal then it's no wonder that you're best venue is a site trafficked by eight people.

Do you challenge that the publisher of a major magazine who shows up on CNN periodically is more of a bellwether than an ice cream store owner? Ever heard the phrase "opinion leader"? Come on Cali, fight about that.

As for you citing Gallup - well yes, I did respond. I gave you a more comprehensive aggregate poll that shows Obama down two from where he was and actually having dipped behind twice in the national polls. And the first poll I gave did exactly what I said it did - it showed that the public had taken note of the Wright situation and they did not think it boded well for Obama.

So there you are.... sister. You've failed to expose even one "irrational" thread in what I've put forward. But keep trying. You might, at the end of it all, come up with something.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Oh no. You're underwhelmed. Relax, Sis. Who ever said it was an insult? And why would you take it as one?

Ah, I get it. You clearly meant it as a compliment? You aren't very good at this.

And don't get all carried away like you won some point by "calling" me on anecdotal evidence - I fronted from the beginning that it was anecdotal. And if you don't get that not all anecdotal evidence is equal then it's no wonder that you're best venue is a site trafficked by eight people.

Do you challenge that the publisher of a major magazine who shows up on CNN periodically is more of a bellwether than an ice cream store owner? Ever heard the phrase "opinion leader"? Come on Cali, fight about that.

In other words, in the first paragraph you admit anecdotal evidence isn't great. In the second paragraph you claim "unless it is from a REALLY important person." Please. What evidence do you have to show that the opinion of a magazine publisher is more of a bellweather than that of an ice cream store owner? Good luck backing that one up. (or maybe I should just take your word for it, as anecdotal evidence).

As for you citing Gallup - well yes, I did respond. I gave you a more comprehensive aggregate poll that shows Obama down two from where he was and actually having dipped behind twice in the national polls. And the first poll I gave did exactly what I said it did - it showed that the public had taken note of the Wright situation and they did not think it boded well for Obama.

So you agree that your claim about independents was unfounded (which you used as evidence for your original premise that it hurt Obama generally). Excellent. Then we can discard that evidence and focus on the remainder of your shoddy evidence. The first poll you gave, as I already noted, was taken in the period immediately following Wright's emergence. I said, and I say again, that I am not disputing that Wright had a short term impact. That isn't your claim at all, though. Your claim is one of a longer term impact. So that poll doesn't do anything for you. The second poll you posted also doesn't do anything for you because it shows a correlation in a decline in numbers with Clinton. Are you arguing that Wright is impacting her numbers? How can you attribute any decline to Wright? What is the basis of your argument? You may have failed to neglect that the biggest drop in Obama's support was not among independents but among registered Democrats during the period you posted, and is most easily explained by the fight with Clinton (and the corresponding polling showing unhappiness with Obama by Clinton supporters). Or we could just magically attribute the decline 100% to Wright. Or to mean aligators. Both would make as much sense.

So there you are.... sister. You've failed to expose even one "irrational" thread in what I've put forward. But keep trying. You might, at the end of it all, come up with something.

If you say so, it must be true (that is also irrational on your part, by the way).

[Oxcoug]

This is getting fun....I should thank you for that. I might add - you're genuinely smart. I write that w/o even a slight smirk.

But - how is a publisher of a magazine with a half million circulation and an influential public profile a more significant driver and leader in public opinion than a woman selling ice cream cones in Des Moines? Oh... no reason I guess. That's a point for you apparently, my bad.

As for the impact on Independents - the polls disagree with each other.

From May 5:

USA TODAY -- One poll says Wright controversy has hurt Obama: "Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability. ... In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points."

You can call those things "short term" - and some people might forget. But many will not. People do not set these things completely aside.