View Full Version : Obama with a double-digit lead
June 25, 2008
Poll shows Obama with a double-digit lead (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/poll-shows-obama-with-a-double-digit-lead/)
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-ticker-producer-alexander-mooney/)
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/24/art.obamapoll.ap.jpg Obama is up big in a new poll.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
(CNN) ? With just over four months to go until voters weigh in at the polls, a new survey suggests Sen. Barack Obama is holding a double-digit lead over Sen. John McCain among registered voters.
According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story), Obama holds a 12 point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 percent to 37 percent. But when third party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's lead over McCain extends to 15 points, 48 percent to 33 percent.
The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain may face a sizable deficit as the general election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the Illinois senator with a 15 point lead.
Watch: Obama leads McCain in critical swing states (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/19/ec.swing.states.cnn?iref=videosearch)
According to a CNN analysis of five recent national surveys, Obama holds an 8 point lead over his presidential rival.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes a substantial lead in June does not always lead to a decisive victory the following November.
?Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.
"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.
The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll indicates Obama is clearly benefiting from the nation's economic woes. Voters rate the economy as the most pressing issue facing the country and say Obama is likely to handle the issue better than the presumptive Republican nominee. Voters say McCain is better suited to handle the war against terror, but the poll indicates that is not currently their top concern.
The poll also indicates the conservative base has yet to fully embrace their party's nominee. Among voters who self identified themselves as conservative, just under 60 percent said they would vote for McCain, fifteen percent said they would vote for Obama, 15 percent said they would vote for another candidate, and 13 percent said they were undecided.
That compares to the nearly 80 percent of self identified liberals who say they plan to vote for Obama.
As for former supporters of Hillary Clinton, the poll finds only 11 percent aren't planning on supporting Obama.
The poll surveyed 1,115 registered voters and was conducted from June 19-23. It carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/poll-shows-obama-with-a-double-digit-lead/?eref=aol_hl
The poll surveyed 1,115 registered voters and was conducted from June 19-23
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx
June 25, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama, McCain Tied at 45%
The general-election results are based on combined data from June 22-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,600 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ?2 percentage points.
Polls will always differ. Best to wait for the election.
deathofcheese
06-25-2008, 20:22
That's nice.
That's nice.
You have something against africans?
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 20:26
Or the end of the free world. Not sure which.*
* Pretty sure.
Obama's American.
Africans can't run for president of the united states.
Or the end of the free world. Not sure which.*
* Pretty sure.
Why would obama take away the free world?
Seegtease
06-25-2008, 20:29
You have something against africans?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal for an African to run for president.
EDIT: Dang, I got beat to the pwn.
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 20:30
Why would obama take away the free world?
To give it to everyone but us.
To give it to everyone but us.
I don't understand.
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 20:47
That's fine.
I was just about to say, I wonder how long this will turn into another "I don't understand" thread.
That's fine.
No it's not. I don't understand what your saying.
Speak up sunny.
He could answer you and go into detail but he runs the very serious risk of going over your head and I'm sure his decision not to get into it too deeply was based on him mentally balancing the effort of explaining versus the outcome of him saying it. If he spends 5 minutes explaining it and ends up just confusing you then that's 5 minutes he will never get back so why bother, you know?
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 20:53
Especially when Z can waste the time for me. [Face of friendly wink.]
He could answer you and go into detail but he runs the very serious risk of going over your head and I'm sure his decision not to get into it too deeply was based on him mentally balancing the effort of explaining versus the outcome of him saying it. If he spends 5 minutes explaining it and ends up just confusing you then that's 5 minutes he will never get back so why bother, you know?
If that was true i would have no interest in the cnn website.
deathofcheese
06-25-2008, 20:59
"Whoop-de-doo, it's another misleading poll" is what I meant.
By the way, jerk*, I fully support Obama and intend to vote for him in November, believing him to the best of most of the candidates we've seen and the best of the candidates we're left with.
*Frozen
"Whoop-de-doo, it's another misleading poll" is what I meant.
By the way, jerk*, I fully support Obama and intend to vote for him in November, believing him to the best of most of the candidates we've seen and the best of the candidates we're left with.
*Frozen
What is your problem?
Don't blame it on me. Blame it on cnn. Did you click the link?
Did i say any were of my support for obama? No.
I think this kinda serves my point: you got confused again. Deathofcheese was upset because you implied that he discriminates against black people. Dont you remember? You have something against africans?
I did not implied i ask.And his post was spam any ways.
"You have something against Africans" is a statement but I'll concede to the fact that you ended it in a question mark. It's what is known as a leading question where you're pushing the other person toward an answer. An ambiguous question would be "How do you feel about the candidates?"
As deathofcheese points out, his comment was directed toward the poll, not the person.
"Whoop-de-doo, it's another misleading poll" is what I meant.You appeared to make the assumption that he was directly against Obama. You didn't even ask his feelings on McCain and, as it turns out, Death is a big Obama supporter so you can see how he might be upset, ya?
Well it's just what he said to obama leading "that's nice".So i thought he was referring to obama leading and responded whith "that's nice".
Actually, he posted "Thats nice" after I posted that they were tied in a different poll, thereby showing that polls are inaccurate and "Thats nice" was a way for him to show his relative apathy toward them (the polls) since they mean very little in the long run anyway.
Actually, he posted "Thats nice" after I posted that they were tied in a different poll, thereby showing that polls are inaccurate and "Thats nice" was a way for him to show his relative apathy toward them (the polls) since they mean very little in the long run anyway.
Oh well then that's what quotes are for.
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 21:36
You're too selfless, Zac.
Far too bored, is more like it. I gotta put in extra hours at the office so UEF is my only form of entertainment for the next 2.5 hours, lol.
And i had no idea knowing the poll was wrong.It s from CNN. I thought CNN was pretty accurate but i guess i was wrong.Atleast more accurate than fox news.
Bloodcinder
06-25-2008, 21:42
+1!
It kinda shows how much power the media has and how easy it is for them to change the elections.
They had the option to not show rev wright.
I'm not saying your poll was wrong, necessarily. CNN's poll probably accurately reflected what those 1000-something people thought. I'm just saying sample polls in general elections aren't very good indicators of how the entire country will actually vote.
Actully it's probaly AOL's fault i saw it on there then posted it here.
Polls are lovely for the here and now..but at this point in time, its meaningless except for story filler.
deathofcheese
06-25-2008, 23:01
Actully it's probaly AOL's fault i saw it on there then posted it here.
Then don't use AOHell.
Seriously, who wants to decide an election by having some big media corporation tell you who's going to win? Whatever happened to the people whom the candidates are about to partially rule over being able to choose which candidate will partially rule over them? I'm so sick of news channels and any kind of politics coverage any more. They don't even bother to tell you what the candidates said their views were, just the implications of what they said, how what they said is going to affect their campaign, how other people react to it, and how the American public should treat it. Since when did the entirety of the American populace become mindless sheep? I know quite a big percentage is, but that doesn't mean the condition should be encouraged.
It doesn't matter what poll or news story you link to. Unless it's specifically about what the candidates say or it offers complete, unbiased, fact about one of the candidates, it's a worthless link.
Killer_Man_
06-25-2008, 23:54
Some how I think skulls and bones or whatever that Harvard secret order is. I'm sure something is going to get rigged somewhere and it's going to be anther FL problem again.
deathofcheese
06-26-2008, 00:05
:tldr:
What?
Where's Bloodcinder to give you your +1? lol :D
Killer_Man_
06-26-2008, 00:15
What?
You know that secret cult thingy that Bush and every rich person is from...
I can't remember the name.
After searching on google, I'm talking about something like this. http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2006/01/skull-and-bones-fascist-cult.html
Bloodcinder
06-26-2008, 00:17
Seriously, who wants to decide an election by having some big media corporation tell you who's going to win?
Iowa.
Where's Bloodcinder to give you your +1? lol :D
I sooo died when SE used that smiley. If he goes and pastes it into the eligible thread, I think I'll still laugh again so he can get the point.
Gio Takahashi
06-26-2008, 00:59
Holy crap guys, you're going all nuts in this thread.
I don't really care much for polls, it means little different. John Kerry shown higher ratings than Bush, yet bush still won. Still no different.
the election will say everything.
deathofcheese
06-26-2008, 10:24
You know that secret cult thingy that Bush and every rich person is from...
I can't remember the name.
After searching on google, I'm talking about something like this. http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2006/01/skull-and-bones-fascist-cult.html
A fraternal society like a college secret society and a fraternal society like, say, the Masons are two completely different things. I sincerely doubt Bush would be let into the Masons under any circumstances, and that's really the big one that matters.
Killer_Man_
06-26-2008, 11:24
Yes I know but I couldn't remember it, my memory fades. -.- I am just saying, it'd be interesting if there is a secret order who rigs everything. xD
Bloodcinder
06-26-2008, 11:26
...it'd be interesting if there is a secret order who rigs everything.
They call it The Illuminati.
Gio Takahashi
06-26-2008, 12:20
Yes I know but I couldn't remember it, my memory fades. -.- I am just saying, it'd be interesting if there is a secret order who rigs everything. xD
They are called The Veil.
Cookie for anyone who get this statement
SpaceProg
06-26-2008, 12:42
They are called Me and My Gang of Cosmic Hobos.
Killer_Man_
06-26-2008, 14:43
Play on words eh? Shielding the eyes of the people by a 'veil.'
Gio Takahashi
06-26-2008, 16:58
Man no one remembers it anymore :(
SpaceProg
06-26-2008, 17:21
The Veil sounds familiar, but I wasn't going to put my neck out for fear of my memory going kerplunk.
deathofcheese
06-26-2008, 19:36
Or the Knights Templar (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/assassinscreed/index.html?tag=result;title;2). Or the Freemasons/Masons. Or the Shriners. Or the Knights of Columbus. Or...[ad nauseum]
Seegtease
06-28-2008, 13:51
Frozen's threads get way too much attention.
Bloodcinder
06-28-2008, 14:51
Because people waste their time complaining about Frozen.
Gio Takahashi
06-29-2008, 02:24
On what grounds? he hasn't harmed anyone, but just annoyed the devil about of everyone.
People do give frozen too much attention than what it warrants, although some of the threads he posted are usually good.
Arainach
06-29-2008, 02:49
At most other forums I visit, annoying the devil out of everyone IS grounds for banning.
Especially becauseIt's the motherfucking INTERNET and it's physically IMPOSSIBLE to harm anyone
Gio Takahashi
06-29-2008, 02:52
Partially true. People's feeling do gets hurt off the internet, even though it's just the internet. Not everyone feels that way.
I'm generally fair, probably too nice in some situation, but if I banned people for being so annoying, Charlie would've been banned long ago.
Arainach
06-29-2008, 02:56
I can't argue with your logic at all. Fair enough.
I wouldn't worry about it. You were a few hours to late. The show's already over and I got it handled. We'll see in the next few days whether or not today's events paid off but so far it's definitely looking like it.
I really don't under stand how i'm annoying.
Don't worry about it, bro. Lets just let the topic straighten itself. No need to derail it further ;)
Okay because obama is in the title i just have to ask.
Why the hell is obama helping hillary what would he gain from that?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg/220px-
Duo's pretty much got it. Obama has to kinda kiss up to Hillary now in an effort to get her supporters on his side (Many are going to McCain).
Gio Takahashi
06-29-2008, 03:13
Hilary and Obama are both democrats, and a lot of the democrats are annoyed at them because they basically split the political party against each other, it's destroying the democrats' image. Which is why I agree with Duo and Z. They need a unified front now.
Oh okay yeah that makes sense.Sorry if the question sounded stupid.
Duo's pretty much got it. Obama has to kinda kiss up to Hillary now in an effort to get her supporters on his side (Many are going to McCain).
But it was hillarys fault she should be the one to kiss up.
Hillary actually ended up dropping out of the race so she's stuck as a Senator. Obama's kissing her ass becuase he still wants to be president and he may need her help to get it. Otherwise he, too, will be stuck as just a senator.
Bloodcinder
06-29-2008, 11:12
It's the motherfucking INTERNET and it's physically IMPOSSIBLE to harm anyone
No I could hack your monitiro and make it explod4e on you Itook computer science 3
Hilary and Obama are both democrats, and a lot of the democrats are annoyed at them because they basically split the political party against each other, it's destroying the democrats' image. Which is why I agree with Duo and Z. They need a unified front now.
I really don't get this. People keep saying that Obama and Hillary split the party. People kept complaining that Hillary needed to drop out to save the party's face.
Since when are primaries not always like that? The major candidates in each party duke it out amongst themselves. That's what happens. Get over it, folks. If Obama and Hillary ruined the Democrat image, then perhaps the Democrats have a bad image already.
Seegtease
06-29-2008, 15:39
Truth.
Primaries are always battles within the parties. This year, it just got a heck of a lot more coverage than in the past.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.