Peace, My Bretheren...and erm...Sisteren -- A Soothing Report on Latest Poll Good News!

[Political Heretic]

State by State Polls have Obama with a pounding electorial win.
http://www.pollster.com/

CNN's Poll of Polls (that would be an average of all national polls, not just one poll) has Obama up by EIGHT as of July 10th, a gain of two points. Funny that it didn't get much headline on their site or their news reports. hmmm...
http://political-heretic.blogspot.com/2008/07/cnn-obama-increases-lead-to-8-points.html

Real Clear Politics, has Obama ahead by 4.2 points at of 7/11 in their average of national polls from 6/26-7/11
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

And can I say again, in state by state polls, Obama is whipping ass here he needs to? Electoral Vote, which updates its map as new state polls come in, has Obama with an even more Crushing win if the election were held today:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[uponit7771]

1. K&R

[MGKrebs]

2. And your point?

We can sit back and relax? No need to worry?
Your evidence is a 5 point lead in an average of polls that have an "average" margin of error of about 3 to 4%?
An average of polls that include leads of 1% and 3%?

Glad you feel safe.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skooooo]

6. Wow you're really articulate.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

7. where did he say we can sit back and relax and no need to worry?

i find it kind of annoying that you put words into the OP's mouth.

[MGKrebs]

11. I asked what the point was because I didn't see one.

I offered one since I didn't see one in there (including question marks), so the O.P responds with his point (which apparently is related to another thread, unmentioned in the O.P., how was I to know?), which I might be interested in arguing, but then he has to call me a name, meaning to me that discussion/argument isn't the intent here. Fine.

[CreekDog]

12. a post like yours wasn't going to generate "discussion" but offense

that it generated an angry response is not really surprising.

among the most offensive things you can do is put words in someone else's mouth.

[Political Heretic]

15. It wasn't even an angry response. I just said there's no need to be a jerk about it.

And explained what I meant.

That's really, really tame.

[Political Heretic]

16. Called you a name. Right. I said "no need to be a jerk about it" Wow.... OUCH.

That's pretty mild.

If I want to call someone a name, I'll select from options such as:

-Asshole
-Jackass
-Fucking Asshole
-Dumbfuck
-Moron
-Freeper
-Asshat

Etc.

Saying, "hey don't be a jerk about it" is something you could hear a six year old say even in polite conversation as a simple request not to be mean.

So get over yourself, please.

[Political Heretic]

14. There shouldn't be anything wrong with saying that there's no need to be a jerk in your responses.

That's an incredibly tame thing to say. I'm sorry, but that is the most tame and polite way to point out that someone else is being unnecessarily mean in their response.

It's hardly a personal attack or over the top.

My point was that these stream of post that keep putting up the same poll and "concern trolling" about it shouldn't dishearten the rest of us who pay more attention to a wide variety of information.

And so there was no need for you to be mean in your response. And there's nothing in that which should be cause for a "deletion" of my post.

[ginnyinWI]

3. Economics will decide it for people.

It's not online yet, but an economic wonk has an article in the new Washington Monthly about this. It's really "the economy, stupid", most economists say. Economic times are bad, so the electorate will switch sides. But he emphasizes that this is assuming he keeps on campaigning and the money keeps flowing in. So we must not let up, must keep donating.

People look at the R and D nominees and see their predecessor. People assume (rightly) that McCain will give more of what the last R President gave--and *'s sour economic record will taint anything McCain can say. They assume that Obama will give more of what his Dem predecessor, Bill Clinton gave--and that economy was good. So on economics, Obama wins hands down. If he keeps campaigning and if we keep working and donating the cash.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. Probably true, but there is a lot of time between now and the election

Four months ago the economy was not as big an issue. We need to accept the fact that national security may again become more prominent.

[lonestarnot]

9. Keep pounding! They are trying to manage a cheat!

:applause:

[tblue37]

10. And _Newsweek_ is apparently saying that Obama's numbers are down, he is in a dead

heat with McCain, and he is in trouble.

The MSM will create the narrative they want (i.e., it's that close--which means it can be stolen), and people will believe them. We have to act always as though we are the underdog in this race, because the election-stealing infrastructure put in place by the Republicans is so pervasive that we will always be the underdogs until our leaders wise up and do something about election theft.

[mucifer]

13. even if it is not close they will use the race card to explain how the polls will

be drastically different than the results. That's what I think anyway.