Comments on: Conversations with an internal pollster for Obama… http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/ Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:01:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: THE_RED_REBEL http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-164 THE_RED_REBEL Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:35:04 +0000 #comment-164 <p>SAD. BUT YOUR STATE MAY BECOME HIS MECCA.</p> SAD. BUT YOUR STATE MAY BECOME HIS MECCA.

]]> By: pwest http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-163 pwest Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:19 +0000 #comment-163 <p>and I've seen them. But I haven't seen one McCain ad! Hey look, Obama raised 150 million in September let him spend it in places he can't win, so he won't have as much to spend it in places he might win. Spend all you want in Alabama, so you'll have less for PA.</p> and I’ve seen them. But I haven’t seen one McCain ad! Hey look, Obama raised 150 million in September let him spend it in places he can’t win, so he won’t have as much to spend it in places he might win. Spend all you want in Alabama, so you’ll have less for PA.

]]> By: Joliphant http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-162 Joliphant Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:50:56 +0000 #comment-162 <p>If they can present a consistent picture of Obama being ahead in the polls and the election is close, they can try and take it to the courts again. </p> <p>Win or lose in the bid for the presidency they inch closer to having the courts be the arbiters of succession not the electorate. </p> <p>No matter what if McCain wins we can expect to hear four years of stolen election and illegitimate president by the media.</p> If they can present a consistent picture of Obama being ahead in the polls and the election is close, they can try and take it to the courts again.

Win or lose in the bid for the presidency they inch closer to having the courts be the arbiters of succession not the electorate.

No matter what if McCain wins we can expect to hear four years of stolen election and illegitimate president by the media.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-161 PaRep Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:03:34 +0000 #comment-161 <p>says watch where the campaigns are going NUMBNUTS </p> says watch where the campaigns are going NUMBNUTS

]]> By: SRT http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-160 SRT Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:52:28 +0000 #comment-160 <p>Have you seen recent state polling here?</p> Have you seen recent state polling here?

]]> By: whoframedrudy http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-159 whoframedrudy Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:44:35 +0000 #comment-159 <p>That crude Biden attack on 'Joe The Plumber' not having a license seemed strange to me, if they're so confident.</p> <p>If they win, they still have to govern. Show of hands--who thinks Obama will magically cure the economy in his first term? I don't care if they have 80 seats in the Senate, Congress can either do nothing, or raise taxes on everybody. No-win. So why start off an impossible job with 10 million 'Joe' sympathizers angry at you? Unless it's a gambit because you're worried.</p> That crude Biden attack on ‘Joe The Plumber’ not having a license seemed strange to me, if they’re so confident.

If they win, they still have to govern. Show of hands–who thinks Obama will magically cure the economy in his first term? I don’t care if they have 80 seats in the Senate, Congress can either do nothing, or raise taxes on everybody. No-win. So why start off an impossible job with 10 million ‘Joe’ sympathizers angry at you? Unless it’s a gambit because you’re worried.

]]> By: alicelouise58 http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-158 alicelouise58 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:54:58 +0000 #comment-158 <p>In 1989 or 1990 Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega seemed to be coasting to election. The glamorous Left seemed ready to gloat over it. Celebutards like Bianca Jagger were flying in. Well if anyone has read.. their celebrations were premature.</p> <p>PJ O'Rourke summed it up in an article. A Nicaraguan peasant is confronted by a pollster AND a government thug. He said what the government guy wanted to hear. He expressed his true sentiments on a private ballot.</p> <p>The same analogy applies today. The snotty urban pollster saying, "So... if the election were held today would you vote for the totally cool BO or are you some Knuckle dragging White sheeted racist who's voting for John McCain? BTW the former answer will put you in high esteem of vacuous Hollywood types."</p> In 1989 or 1990 Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega seemed to be coasting to election. The glamorous Left seemed ready to gloat over it. Celebutards like Bianca Jagger were flying in. Well if anyone has read.. their celebrations were premature.

PJ O’Rourke summed it up in an article. A Nicaraguan peasant is confronted by a pollster AND a government thug. He said what the government guy wanted to hear. He expressed his true sentiments on a private ballot.

The same analogy applies today. The snotty urban pollster saying, “So… if the election were held today would you vote for the totally cool BO or are you some Knuckle dragging White sheeted racist who’s voting for John McCain? BTW the former answer will put you in high esteem of vacuous Hollywood types.”

]]> By: alicelouise58 http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-157 alicelouise58 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:09:09 +0000 #comment-157 <p>Call me an optimist, but BO does not have the smarts of a Josef Stalin or enough numbers to muster Chekist/NKVD/KGB enforcers to ram his policies down our throats.</p> Call me an optimist, but BO does not have the smarts of a Josef Stalin or enough numbers to muster Chekist/NKVD/KGB enforcers to ram his policies down our throats.

]]> By: janis http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-156 janis Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:25:09 +0000 #comment-156 <p>yesterday afternoon trying to explain his ridiculous theory that companies and corporations wouldn't pass the tax increase along to their customers. His reasoning? That, in order to remain competitive, they will have to absorb the cost of the tax increase and keep their services/goods the same.</p> <p>What a useful idiot.</p> yesterday afternoon trying to explain his ridiculous theory that companies and corporations wouldn’t pass the tax increase along to their customers. His reasoning?
That, in order to remain competitive, they will have to absorb the cost of the tax increase and keep their services/goods the same.

What a useful idiot.

]]> By: sp2008 http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-155 sp2008 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:19:13 +0000 #comment-155 <p>Not only will the increase in corporate taxes lead to slower job growth and potential layoffs, it will also force our companies to raise their prices for goods and services. This means your dollar will not go as far. In addition, over time our companies will be less competitive on a global basis (tough to compete with others when one of your main costs (taxes) are twice as much as theirs). Over time foreign companies will buy our domestic ones, taking advantage of the tax arbitrage. Then more and more jobs will move overseas. It is easy to see the near term impacts (more layoffs, slower economy, higher prices), but the longer term consequences could be even more severe. (Not to be an alarmist but often times people don't see the impact of unintended consequences, I believe the unintended consequence of an Obama presidency is the end of America's position as an economic leader)</p> Not only will the increase in corporate taxes lead to slower job growth and potential layoffs, it will also force our companies to raise their prices for goods and services. This means your dollar will not go as far. In addition, over time our companies will be less competitive on a global basis (tough to compete with others when one of your main costs (taxes) are twice as much as theirs). Over time foreign companies will buy our domestic ones, taking advantage of the tax arbitrage. Then more and more jobs will move overseas. It is easy to see the near term impacts (more layoffs, slower economy, higher prices), but the longer term consequences could be even more severe. (Not to be an alarmist but often times people don’t see the impact of unintended consequences, I believe the unintended consequence of an Obama presidency is the end of America’s position as an economic leader)

]]> By: sp2008 http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-154 sp2008 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:09:15 +0000 #comment-154 <p>I asked an Obama supporter a simple question... how much would you pay to have Obama in the White House? $50,000? $100,000? How much is it worth to you? No answer. Then I asked how they could possibly vote for a guy without understanding his tax policy and what it would end up costing him. The only response was to say the Bush administration had done an awful job. The Obama supporters want to support this guy and really don't bother to critically analyze any of his policies. I am not a registered republican, but I have never felt this strongly about a Presidential election. I am in finance, have a thorough understanding of the issues, and I think Obama's policies are a disaster. I this is not just because I am selfeshly looking out for my own wallet. I think he his policies are going to impede job growth, and make our companies less competitive. I think his spending plans are out of control, his healthcare plan will eventually bankrupt the country, and his tax policies will permanently weaken our economy. This guy teamed up with a democratic congress scares me. Unfortunately we have a bunch of people in this country who are willing to passionately vote and not willing to critically analyze the issues. In addition we have a media that is so liberal and so biased that they won't question a single thing that Obama says.</p> I asked an Obama supporter a simple question… how much would you pay to have Obama in the White House? $50,000? $100,000? How much is it worth to you? No answer. Then I asked how they could possibly vote for a guy without understanding his tax policy and what it would end up costing him. The only response was to say the Bush administration had done an awful job. The Obama supporters want to support this guy and really don’t bother to critically analyze any of his policies. I am not a registered republican, but I have never felt this strongly about a Presidential election. I am in finance, have a thorough understanding of the issues, and I think Obama’s policies are a disaster. I this is not just because I am selfeshly looking out for my own wallet. I think he his policies are going to impede job growth, and make our companies less competitive. I think his spending plans are out of control, his healthcare plan will eventually bankrupt the country, and his tax policies will permanently weaken our economy. This guy teamed up with a democratic congress scares me. Unfortunately we have a bunch of people in this country who are willing to passionately vote and not willing to critically analyze the issues. In addition we have a media that is so liberal and so biased that they won’t question a single thing that Obama says.

]]> By: 29Victor http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-153 29Victor Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:30:49 +0000 #comment-153 <p>I was going to recommend it, then saw that it had been promoted.</p> <p>The Obama campaign wants us dispirited and the MSM is doing everything possible to help them.</p> I was going to recommend it, then saw that it had been promoted.

The Obama campaign wants us dispirited and the MSM is doing everything possible to help them.

]]> By: 29Victor http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-152 29Victor Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:29:14 +0000 #comment-152 <p>People who make sense are Conservatives, people who don't are Liberals.</p> <p>Works for me. ;)</p> People who make sense are Conservatives, people who don’t are Liberals.

Works for me. ;)

]]> By: JSobieski http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-151 JSobieski Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:00:06 +0000 #comment-151 <p>Either would be the best ticket since Reagan-Bush, with a stronger and more communicative VP.</p> Either would be the best ticket since Reagan-Bush, with a stronger and more communicative VP.

]]> By: David_Rasbold http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-150 David_Rasbold Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:57 +0000 #comment-150 <p>First, just a quick friendly correction. Sarah puts us over the top, not the brink. It's the accomodating conservo crazies (Noonan, et al) that are nearly at/over the brink. It's just that brink usually has a negative connotation... (I need to get off the word parsing kick here - lol). </p> <p>To your secondary point, I think you have something here. BHO just yesterday began warning his peeps (and the media ran with it) to not get too confident. Now, we know that his campaign is brimming in overconfidence and I dont think they're willing to cede any of their arrogant ground. What are we seeing instead is an attempt to keep the college crowd and other less reliable voters in the game.</p> <p>This is also another reason you'll see the polls tighten all of the sudden in some of the more liberal polls. BHO and media can't risk encouraging people staying home if they think it's already won. </p> <p>Now, the downside for Obama and his media allies is that shrinking leads in polls for Obama also risks further encouraging of the part of the republican base that pays way too much attention to election polls. </p> <p>Keep in mind that polls always tighten anyway the closer we are to election day, for all of the reasons restated ad naseum on Redstate and elsewhere for the past few days - I won't rehash again.</p> <p>However, in this election year where the media bias is probably worse as I can ever remember (and I'm only 33 - others I'm sure can make the point for going back much farther in time) it just seems to me that the media would probably not like to risk motivating the republican base and more than it is already because of Sarah.</p> <p>To go off slightly in a different direction for a moment, this is why we saw such an amazingly concerted effort by the media (and still do) to completely destroy Sarah. The media cannot afford our base to get energized. </p> <p>In the end, we'll see the polls tighten and the media tune to turn repoting focus quickly to "the overconfidence in the Obama camp." This won't be because they think Obama will lose, they're just going to be worried that Obama-cons will stay home since the brainless on their side are such mindless robots and think (based on watch the media has been trumpeting for months) that the election is basically over. </p> <p>The media thinks that these messages are discouraging our base from showing up (while this may apply to a few nervous ninnies), largely they wrong> It's just someone forgot to point out it's the sheep on the left that are more likely to stay home and think victory while smoking their doobies (okay, the doobie part was negative generalizing on my part... but why not).</p> <p>I'm afraid I don't have an Obama campaign official to confirm these thoughts of mine, just my own observations... </p> First, just a quick friendly correction. Sarah puts us over the top, not the brink. It’s the accomodating conservo crazies (Noonan, et al) that are nearly at/over the brink. It’s just that brink usually has a negative connotation… (I need to get off the word parsing kick here - lol).

To your secondary point, I think you have something here. BHO just yesterday began warning his peeps (and the media ran with it) to not get too confident. Now, we know that his campaign is brimming in overconfidence and I dont think they’re willing to cede any of their arrogant ground. What are we seeing instead is an attempt to keep the college crowd and other less reliable voters in the game.

This is also another reason you’ll see the polls tighten all of the sudden in some of the more liberal polls. BHO and media can’t risk encouraging people staying home if they think it’s already won.

Now, the downside for Obama and his media allies is that shrinking leads in polls for Obama also risks further encouraging of the part of the republican base that pays way too much attention to election polls.

Keep in mind that polls always tighten anyway the closer we are to election day, for all of the reasons restated ad naseum on Redstate and elsewhere for the past few days - I won’t rehash again.

However, in this election year where the media bias is probably worse as I can ever remember (and I’m only 33 - others I’m sure can make the point for going back much farther in time) it just seems to me that the media would probably not like to risk motivating the republican base and more than it is already because of Sarah.

To go off slightly in a different direction for a moment, this is why we saw such an amazingly concerted effort by the media (and still do) to completely destroy Sarah. The media cannot afford our base to get energized.

In the end, we’ll see the polls tighten and the media tune to turn repoting focus quickly to “the overconfidence in the Obama camp.” This won’t be because they think Obama will lose, they’re just going to be worried that Obama-cons will stay home since the brainless on their side are such mindless robots and think (based on watch the media has been trumpeting for months) that the election is basically over.

The media thinks that these messages are discouraging our base from showing up (while this may apply to a few nervous ninnies), largely they wrong> It’s just someone forgot to point out it’s the sheep on the left that are more likely to stay home and think victory while smoking their doobies (okay, the doobie part was negative generalizing on my part… but why not).

I’m afraid I don’t have an Obama campaign official to confirm these thoughts of mine, just my own observations…

]]> By: BuckeyePT http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-149 BuckeyePT Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:07:24 +0000 #comment-149 <p>did anyone really believe florida went from mccain +3 to Obama + 7 after the financial fallout. That was the tipoff of the fix being on!</p> did anyone really believe florida went from mccain +3 to Obama + 7 after the financial fallout. That was the tipoff of the fix being on!

]]> By: Mary_Contrary http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-148 Mary_Contrary Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:33:42 +0000 #comment-148 <p>Let's not talk about the fact that Sarah's going to put us over the brink (inspite of Peggy Noonan).</p> <p>If they think it's in the bag, many BHO voters will stay home.</p> <p>Shhhhhh.</p> Let’s not talk about the fact that Sarah’s going to put us over the brink (inspite of Peggy Noonan).

If they think it’s in the bag, many BHO voters will stay home.

Shhhhhh.

]]> By: SpL http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-147 SpL Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:46:30 +0000 #comment-147 <p>I agree. If the Republicans play their cards right, they can take at least one house. <strong>If</strong> they continue to play their cards right they can get the presidency with a good candidate. </p> <p>But this all hinges on the card-playin. Dems dont have to do well, they just have to be able to blame Republicans to win.</p> I agree. If the Republicans play their cards right, they can take at least one house. If they continue to play their cards right they can get the presidency with a good candidate.

But this all hinges on the card-playin. Dems dont have to do well, they just have to be able to blame Republicans to win.

]]> By: SpL http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-146 SpL Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:46:24 +0000 #comment-146 <p>I agree. If the Republicans play their cards right, they can take at least one house. <strong>If</strong> they continue to play their cards right they can get the presidency with a good candidate. </p> <p>But this all hinges on the card-playin. Dems dont have to do well, they just have to be able to blame Republicans to win.</p> I agree. If the Republicans play their cards right, they can take at least one house. If they continue to play their cards right they can get the presidency with a good candidate.

But this all hinges on the card-playin. Dems dont have to do well, they just have to be able to blame Republicans to win.

]]> By: PaRep http://www.redstate.com/david_rasbold/2008/10/15/conversations-with-an-internal-pollster-for-o/#comment-145 PaRep Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:43:52 +0000 #comment-145 <p>But typical Stoooooopid Liberal wasting other peoples money</p> But typical Stoooooopid Liberal wasting other peoples money

]]>