Pew: Obama's favorable among independents shrunk from 62 to 49

[Oxcoug]

bt Feb and May According to this article in New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/47551/ .

Cali got pretty excited in our last conv on Obama arguing that he hadn't been meaningfully damaged (a) by Reverend Wright and (b) among independents.

This strongly suggests the contrary. In fact, it's hard to explain w/o pointing to a Rev Wright effect.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

bt Feb and May According to this article in New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/47551/ .

Cali got pretty excited in our last conv on Obama arguing that he hadn't been meaningfully damaged (a) by Reverend Wright and (b) among independents.

This strongly suggests the contrary. In fact, it's hard to explain w/o pointing to a Rev Wright effect.

The quote doesn't suggest anything of the like. In fact, the quote doesn't suggest much at all. It says "Between February and May, according to Pew polling, the percentage of independents with a favorable view of Obama shrank from 62 to 49 percent." We have no idea, from that quote, when the drops occurred that were so precipitous, or what impact that had on people's decision to support McCain over Obama. According to the Gallop poll I linked to (which provided a whole lot more information than your passing quote), independents are just as likely to vote for Obama today as they were pre-Wright (in fact, more so). You haven't shown any comparison to McCain's favorability ratings either, and you haven't shown that any of this is at all attributable to Wright (other than to say "it is").

Try to be a bit more analytical, Ox. I am frankly a bit surprised at what appear to be "cut and paste" techniques from you without any apparent critical thought prior.

[Oxcoug]

Cali: "We have no idea, from that quote, when the drops occurred that were so precipitous....."

Rarely does the overused e-talk acronym "LOL" literally translate to "laughing out loud" (which is why I almost never use it). But here I actually laughed out loud.

Ummm - we know that it happened from February to May. And when did the Rev Wright thing break? The first week of March. It passes the SF small town gun nut remark as - by far - the biggest issue for the Obama campaign. That's why he made not one, but two speeches about it. And then there's always this

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...04-obama_N.htm

Cali - you do make me smile with the banal "you should try and be more analytical remarks." Because you Cali, are oh-so-analytical. -). Keep it up.

[creekster]

Pardon my ignorance, but does not having a favorable view equate to unwilling to vote for? For example, I assume more than a few republicans will hold their nose but still vote for McCain. SO does this measure the depth or quality of his support or is it in fact equivalent to willingness to vote for him?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by creekster

Pardon my ignorance, but does not having a favorable view equate to unwilling to vote for? For example, I assume more than a few republicans will hold their nose but still vote for McCain. SO does this measure the depth or quality of his support or is it in fact equivalent to willingness to vote for him?

Logically, if you have 13% of a demographic go from liking you to not, at least SOME of them will flip to the extent that they won't even vote for you, while some others will not. If you lose even 25% of those votes (amounting to a total drop of 3.25% of that demographic), it could have serious repercussions on your chances - moreso if that 3% votes for your opponent than if they simply don't vote.

But, the only basis I have for answering this question is considering it logically - I have no evidence.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Cali: "We have no idea, from that quote, when the drops occurred that were so precipitous....."

Rarely does the overused e-talk acronym "LOL" literally translate to "laughing out loud" (which is why I almost never use it). But here I actually laughed out loud.

Ummm - we know that it happened from February to May. And when did the Rev Wright thing break? The first week of March. It passes the SF small town gun nut remark as - by far - the biggest issue for the Obama campaign. That's why he made not one, but two speeches about it. And then there's always this

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...04-obama_N.htm

Cali - you do make me smile with the banal "you should try and be more analytical remarks." Because you Cali, are oh-so-analytical. -). Keep it up.

Ox, are you for real? I am beginning to think you are just trolling, because my opinion previously has been that you are a pretty bright guy.

You show a statement about a poll from Feb to May, and then argue it conclusively demonstrates a drop in polling directly tied to an event in March. How do you know that from your poll? You don't know if the drop was from Feb. to March, or if in March there was no effect and the drop was in May, or if the drop was gradual, etc. Seriously- what do you know other than that according to Pew there was a drop over a four month period? Nothing. Admit as such instead of pretending we can draw absurd conclusions from your very limited data. As Creekster aptly points out as well (and as I noted above), a drop in favorability also says nothing about whether you will vote for the guy (which is what YOU are arguing). The poll that I gave you was about who independents would vote for, so it was exactly on point. You haven't done anything to rebut it other than create "noise."

And to support your theory you continue to cite an article during the time period that I have admitted (from the beginning) was effected by Wright (the time immediately following his emergence)? Give me a break, Ox. Think before you post.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Logically, if you have 13% of a demographic go from liking you to not, at least SOME of them will flip to the extent that they won't even vote for you, while some others will not. If you lose even 25% of those votes (amounting to a total drop of 3.25% of that demographic), it could have serious repercussions on your chances - moreso if that 3% votes for your opponent than if they simply don't vote.

But, the only basis I have for answering this question is considering it logically - I have no evidence.

That isn't logical at all. What if for every single one of the people who think less of Obama, they also think less of McCain? Look at the polling data I posted earlier from Gallup (taken daily over a 4 month period about who independents would vote for). It showed no drop at all (in fact it showed a net increase over the period). Or what if their opinion of Obama drops, but their opinion was already so much higher than their opinion of McCain that a drop for Obama won't lead to any net gain for McCain? If you are being scientific in your approach, you will realize there is very little we can conclude from Ox's one sentence great find.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That isn't logical at all. What if for every single one of the people who think less of Obama, they also think less of McCain? Look at the polling data I posted earlier from Gallup (taken daily over a 4 month period about who independents would vote for). It showed no drop at all (in fact it showed a net increase over the period). Or what if their opinion of Obama drops, but their opinion was already so much higher than their opinion of McCain that a drop for Obama won't lead to any net gain for McCain? If you are being scientific in your approach, you will realize there is very little we can conclude from Ox's one sentence great find.

In my rush to deal with the crises elswhere on the board I neglected this htread. I agree with you here, CC, just becasue they aren't as enthusiastic as beofre doesn't mean they changed their vote. It may be a way to measuer the depth or quality of his support, but unless they ask them whether they are now voting for McCain, it odesn't have that much use, it seems ot me.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

In my rush to deal with the crises elswhere on the board I neglected this htread. I agree with you here, CC, just becasue they aren't as enthusiastic as beofre doesn't mean they changed their vote. It may be a way to measuer the depth or quality of his support, but unless they ask them whether they are now voting for McCain, it odesn't have that much use, it seems ot me.

You always are the voice of reason.