Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

Trends in Polling

  • Posted on
  • by Doctor Fate
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 2:27 am

Archduke Russell John wrote:Apparently the Democratic Party removed a plank that was traditionally part of the platform recognizing Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Ah. Did they keep the one recognizing London as the capital of the United Kingdom? If not I could be mighty upset (although in reality the City of Westminster is the capital, as that's where the government sits and where Buckingham Palace is sited).

A platform statement either way seems to me to be gesture politics rather than a real statement of intent. Reading the 2008 platform, the more contentious part - I would think - was the statement that Jerusalem 'should remain an undivided city'. Was that part of the changes or kept in? It's definitely in the 2012 platform now.

The 'God' one is also odd. I could only find 'God' once in the 2008 platform, in a line about giving people willing to work hard 'the chance to make the most of their God-given' potential'. That was in the 'Renewing the American Dream' section that appears to have been largely rewritten and moved into other parts. Not sure it's all that vital a reference to a deity to keep, but again, clearly it's about gesture politics more than anything.

I can see why the booing, though. Procedurally it was a farce to force a vote and not take it properly, and that would annoy delegates more than the substance of the change. I remember being part of a 'slow hand-clap' at a Labour Party conference in 2002. It was not aimed at what the speaker was saying, so much as that as a member of the top platform he was supposed to be summing up the debate (on pensions) and spoke for way over his alloted time, repeating himself often, and it was clear he was 'filibustering'. The next debate was on Iraq, and was going to be difficult.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 5:18 am

danivon wrote:
Archduke Russell John wrote:Apparently the Democratic Party removed a plank that was traditionally part of the platform recognizing Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Ah. Did they keep the one recognizing London as the capital of the United Kingdom? If not I could be mighty upset (although in reality the City of Westminster is the capital, as that's where the government sits and where Buckingham Palace is sited).

A platform statement either way seems to me to be gesture politics rather than a real statement of intent.


I think you are underestimating the importance of this issue to Jewish voters. As far as I know, Israel is the only country that's capital is not internationally recognized (and I understand why and that it is complicated). Yet the attachment of Israel to Jerusalem is as strong as any country's attachment to its capital; the attachment of Jews to Jerusalem is as strong as any people's attachment to a city. As long as there is an Israel, Jerusalem will be its capital. The sooner the world figures that out, the better.

For people who are hopelessly undecided like me, this tips the balance. After African Americans, Jews have been the most reliable demographic for Democrats. Once these shifts happen they often stick. This could be a huge loss for the Democratic party for a generation.

I think it also goes to the heart about trying to figure out Obama's commitment to Israel as it relates to Iran. I think Israel is waiting because it thinks that the US will either do the job, or support Israel in certain key areas when they do it. If they don't believe that Obama has their back, they will be more likely to preempt.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 5:20 am

P.S. I totally agree on the awfulness of the procedure.
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 5:59 am

ray
This could be a huge loss for the Democratic party for a generation
.
I beleive you are projecting. The evidence suggests that the Jewish vote, as small as it is, will be reliably Democrtatic for a very long time.
source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pol ... -reelected

Even though respondents expressed concerns about relations with the Jewish state — 37 percent said Israel-U.S. relations have gotten worse — very few indicated those concerns would affect their choices in the ballot box. Just over half of Jews said the economy was the most important issue, compared to 4 percent who said Israel was most significant.

Fifty-three percent said they supported the creation of a Palestinian state.
Of the one-third of American Jews who said they don't want to see Obama win a second term, most chose Mitt Romney as their top choice.
Jews in the United States hold higher views of Mormons than they do of Muslims, but it's the Christian right that concerns the community the most, the survey showed. Asked to rate various faith groups on a 100-point scale, Jews gave Mormons a rating of 47, compared to 41 for Muslims. The Christian right came in at just 21.
"There's a long history there," said Jones, citing a clash of cultures on issues related to abortion, same-sex marriage and social issues, where the survey showed that, by and large, Jews remain mostly liberal.
A remarkable 93 percent of Jews said they support legalized abortion, with about half supporting it in all cases and half supporting it in some cases. Eight out of 10 said they support gay marriage
.


with about half supporting it in all cases and half supporting it in some cases. Eight out of 10 sa[i]Do you honestly think that a liberal groups that this poll describes would fit comfortably in the republican camp? They would have to deny every other issue that is important to them in order to accomodate the slight over jereuselum....
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 6:21 am

RJ, I just don't see what difference a party's position makes on the facts in Israel, or even what it matters either way whether governments refer to 'Tel Aviv' or 'Jerusalem'. I think to be honest that attachment to capitals tends to be weaker in many countries. In the UK, London is not that well regarded by people in the rest of the country. Quite a few contries have moved their capitals even quite recently. If Birmingham or Manchester became capital tomorrow, I doubt many would care.

While I understand an emotional (and for some, a spritual) attachment to Jerusalem among Jews, that is different from making it a political position. Pandering to it for votes in the USA seems to demean both the panderers and the pandered. In that sense it is gesture politics to make an issue out of it, especially when most people debating it are not Israeli, or Jewish.

I'm also not convinced it is linked to Iran. Conflating everything into one 'Middle East' issue really does not help.
User avatar
Ray Jay
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 6:41 am

To Ricky's point, perhaps I am projecting, but I'm certainly not the only one. Ricky's article is from April. Take a poll after the high holiday sermons and see if the results are any different.
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Sep 2012, 8:13 am

ray
Take a poll after the high holiday sermons and see if the results are any different.


And what about the high holidays would change the average Jews opinions from the liberal positions they hold on abortion or gay marriage or change their attitude towards fundamental Christians?
Or their generous attitudes towards the establishment of a West Bank Palestine?
Just wondering... I understand the miraculous icon that the reposssesson of Jeruselum by a Jewsish state after almost 2000 years represents. But it isn't an issue that will over whelm their generally liberal, very liberal for the US, positions . And I can't see them abandoning funamental values in order to accomodate one passing slight , that was very clumsily corrected.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Sep 2012, 2:48 pm

rickyp pointed to the PPP poll in Ohio as evidence that Obama has a firm grip on the election. I think this analysis has much to recommend it:

Will Oiho Ohio Democrats turn out in record numbers this November, even eclipsing the 2008 wave election that allowed Barack Obama to win the state by five points in 2008? If so, then PPP predicts a similar outcome in its latest survey of the Buckeye State, but that model might raise a few eyebrows:

. . .

The point about independents gets to the heart of the issue with this poll. The sample has a D/R/I split of 41/37/22. The 37% that Republicans get in this survey matches their 2010 midterm turnout, which had a D/R/I of 36/37/28. The 41% for Democrats significantly exceeds that turnout, and also exceeds the 2008 election’s 39/31/30 exit polling that produced the five-point margin of Obama victory in the election.

The big drop in independents from the sample is well worth noting, because Obama won Ohio independents by eight points in 2008, 52/44 — greater than his five-point margin of victory. If Romney is up by two in this demographic, that’s a ten-point swing among what had been 28-30% of the turnout in Ohio elections. Nothing in this poll suggests that Ohio has suddenly become a lot more Democratic except the sample itself; even in this sample, Obama’s job approval is only 48/48 (only 51/44 among women), and a -14 among independents, 40/54.

Ohio looks deadlocked if one considers the modeling used, and even perhaps edging toward Romney when looking at the independents. I’d wait on hitting panic buttons here until seeing something with a better likely-voter model.
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Sep 2012, 3:11 pm

Here's another poll: CNN has Obama up 52-46. Wow, you might think. My first hint that something is wrong: 98% between the two? Really?

ast week O led Romney by seven points among that group; this week he leads by eight. Obviously the composition of CNN’s sample of likely voters has changed, although because they never publish their partisan splits, there’s no way to tell by how much exactly.

Speaking of which, number two: Romney trails overall by six points while leading among independents … by 14?

The only way to make those numbers make sense is if the sample of likely voters skews sharply Democratic, which seems improbable, and if the sample of independents here is minuscule. That wouldn’t be unusual for CNN, if so: Just like last week, it looks like they’re pressing hard to get self-identified indies to identify themselves as leaners one way or the other and then reserving the indie column for the few remaining “true independents.” With a small enough sample, Romney could theoretically lead O by 50 points among this group and still trail overall.
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Sep 2012, 3:22 pm

I know Fate. Only Rasmussen is a decent pollster.
Wait, Rasmussen has Obama up by 5% today.
Oh and he has the generic Demcrat in Congress up by two over republican generic.
And Rasmussen has Obama's job approval rating at 53%.... Wasn't that your key factor?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Somethings happened. Could be the convention bounce. Or, it could be that finally there was a clear message sent on some key issues. (Thanks in large part to Clinton.)
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Sep 2012, 4:03 pm

rickyp wrote:I know Fate. Only Rasmussen is a decent pollster.
Wait, Rasmussen has Obama up by 5% today.


I'm not worried. Obama got a bounce; what goes up . . . comes down.

Oh and he has the generic Demcrat in Congress up by two over republican generic.


Yup, but that still portends a good year for the GOP. Democrats need to be up 6 to gain.

And Rasmussen has Obama's job approval rating at 53%.... Wasn't that your key factor?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Somethings happened. Could be the convention bounce. Or, it could be that finally there was a clear message sent on some key issues. (Thanks in large part to Clinton.)


If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.

Two months.

I'll still bet you. It's not gambling if it's a sure thing . . . you are SO confident! You know SO much! How can you lose?
User avatar
rickyp
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Sep 2012, 5:19 pm

fate
If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.


what, you can't take pride in ensuring everyone has enough to eat?
Are the two muttually exclusive?

As Gertrude, in Chicken Run, says in response to the "Give me liberty or give me death".
Aren't there any other choices?
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Sep 2012, 11:20 am

rickyp wrote:fate
If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.


what, you can't take pride in ensuring everyone has enough to eat?
Are the two muttually exclusive?

As Gertrude, in Chicken Run, says in response to the "Give me liberty or give me death".
Aren't there any other choices?


Image
User avatar
danivon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 Sep 2012, 11:29 am

Doctor Fate wrote:If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.

Woah there!

Are you saying that a vote against Obama is a vote to end food stamps and welfare completely? I understand that Romney may want to reform and reduce them, but that's how it sounds.

Unless, of course, you are saying that people who vote for Obama must be lacking in pride and all on welfare and food stamps, and are eager for a free abortion.

Well, I suppose this kind of thing is one way to carry out a political debate.

[oh, and I understood Ricky quite well - you can have pride in a country that offers welfare and healthcare to those in need, and you can even be a recipient and have pride, but the way you phrase it suggests that they are mutually incompatible, and as such looks like a false dichotomy

And, um, 4chan/lolcats style pictures with a jibe at a person are what some might call 'trolling']
User avatar
Doctor Fate
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Sep 2012, 11:47 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.

Woah there!

Are you saying that a vote against Obama is a vote to end food stamps and welfare completely? I understand that Romney may want to reform and reduce them, but that's how it sounds.


You've jumped the shark.

I never said that and, no, it doesn't "sound like that."

Unless, of course, you are saying that people who vote for Obama must be lacking in pride and all on welfare and food stamps, and are eager for a free abortion.


Again, you infer what you wish and do so inaccurately.

Maybe you could ask a question or two rather than making up stuff?

Well, I suppose this kind of thing is one way to carry out a political debate.


What? Making stuff up?

[oh, and I understood Ricky quite well - you can have pride in a country that offers welfare and healthcare to those in need, and you can even be a recipient and have pride, but the way you phrase it suggests that they are mutually incompatible, and as such looks like a false dichotomy


What is Obama doing? Running around the country promising "stuff" to different constituencies. In other words, his "plan" is to cobble enough interest groups together by buying them off to win the election. How is that a "plan" to solve anything?

I never said there was anything wrong with a safety net. There is something terribly wrong when a President's party has a convention that is filled with talk of abortion and government aid and little else (save for a lot of bragging about how HE killed Bin Laden).

And, um, 4chan/lolcats style pictures with a jibe at a person are what some might call 'trolling']


Um, if you, the King of Trolls, say it's trolling, I'll take it with a kilo of salt.

Rickyp did not respond to what I posted. He made something up and then threw in a line from a movie. Please point to when I said "America should not take pride in ensuring everyone has enough to eat" or anything similar.

President Obama is campaigning on establishing the Welfare State, cradle to grave entitlements, if, as Dennis Miller said, you survive to the cradle. If Obama wins, he is basically promising to end the United States as a viable economic entity. He won't say that, but he is promising so much that none can doubt where it takes us--over the fiscal cliff.