New Polling Numbers Show National ‘Lead’ for Obama

Those are exciting numbers, though. Have you as a white man ever felt less relevant, iTodd? ;-)

It's rather intriguing to me that McCain isn't leading more than 10 points among white men.

Change, she is a'comin'.

(And to you white guys: We don't dislike you. You just need to stop voting, and running the country, as a bloc! <smile>)

10 points among "whites" -- they didn't break out white men.

And, yes, I've felt less relevant. It usually happens in the women's shoe department.

Oops, I see. You're relevant to me and that houseful of cats we have.

Obama's age is what I am attracted to. I don't think McCain is too old to run this country, but I like the era when Obama was a teenager or college age. It would be nice to have that influence in the White House. I missed it by just over a decade. Late 70's ruled!!

Obama needs a much larger lead than that to win. He can be 5-10 point ahead and still lose. Hell, McCain could landslide if Obama is only a few points ahead in the polls. That isn't even a challenge for them to steal. They will argue that he was ahead by the margin of error. With our no-paper-trail voting machines, it will be easy to steal an election that was close in the polls and nobody will be able to do anything about it (again).

The polling is skewed anyway. It's insane that it is even close! I, and lots of people my age that I know, don't have a home phone - only cell phones. So, a lot of young adults aren't getting polled. I have never been polled. Nobody I know has ever been polled. The numbers are off - McCain shouldn't even be in the same ballpark as Obama.

Although, maybe the numbers are right. I shouldn't "misunderestimate" the ignorance of a lot of American people. Especially when I hear poor Mississippians defending multi-million/billion dollar corporations and politicians that are working against them behind the scenes.

Well I can't get excited yet over those numbers which aren't large enough for my taste since I know there is some lying by some people about supporting Obama. As Tom Bradley, mayor of Los Angelas for over a decade, proved when he ran for governor of liberal California some people will say one thing before the cameras and on paper but do another when in the voting booth.

We all know there is a percentage of racists who hates all blacks and are still training and waiting for the race war wherein they can finally wipe us all out and at last live in perfect whitedom. These people and milder forms of racists aren't voting for Obama and I hope the number of these isn't big enough to make a difference in this election.

I'm always skeptical of Obama's poll numbers, especially the ones that have him ahead, precisely because of the "Bradley/Wilder Effect"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Yup, and the American people will get what they deserve if they let McCain take this election. Those of us who knew enough to try and stop it will just have to sit back and watch the collapse of a once great nation. Maybe that is what has to happen so we can start over.

Some analysts estimate Obama's numbers are underestimated by about four percentage points due to Obama's lead among the under 40 population who are more likely not to have a landline phone and therefore more likely not to be surveyed. I have an Internet phone (Vonage) and that may not get picked up either.

No doubt there is a "Bradley/Wilder" factor also. They may both cancel out. It is too early to put too much stock in the polls right now though.

That's an interesting point, Whitley, I no longer have a land line, nor do most of my friends (all in their 30s to 40s).

Another factor to consider is that they are surveying "likely voters". Who is considered likely? People who have voted before. There are going to be many people voting who have never voted before. There was an 84 year-old lady who said she had never voted before, but came out to vote for Obama. The polls had seemed to predict a close race in the North Carolina primary, but it was a blow out due to all the "unlikely" voters who turned out massively. This is going to be a hard one to predict. A key is can Obama's enthusiasm among "unlikely" young voters be sustained until election day? They are going to try to beat him up to cause the young voters to be disillusioned if possible. The only way they can win is to kill this "hope thing" among young people!

Young people, put down that dope and pick up some hope. Don't go with McCain unless you want to continue the downward slope where you won't be able to cope - Revern J. L. "Nutcutter" Jackson.

Meh. The only poll that really matters to me is the one on November 4.

But it is encouraging to see a person of color actually appear competitive in a Presidential election.

I'm always skeptical of Obama's poll numbers, especially the ones that have him ahead, precisely because of the "Bradley/Wilder Effect"

It crossed my mind, but I didn't know it had a name. If you look further down in the article, they talk about a possible "reverse" Bradley effect when it comes to Obama:

After the Super Tuesday elections of February 5, political science researchers from the University of Washington found trends suggesting the possibility that with regard to Obama, the effect's presence or absence may be dependent on the percentage of the electorate that is black. The researchers noted that to that point in the election season, opinion polls taken just prior to an election tended to overestimate Obama in states with a black population below eight percent, to track him within the polls' margins of error in states with a black population between ten and twenty percent, and to underestimate him in states with a black population exceeding twenty-five percent. The first finding suggested the possibility of the Bradley effect, while the last finding suggested the possibility of a "reverse" Bradley effect in which black voters might have been reluctant to declare to pollsters their support for Obama. By comparison, with only one exception, in each state with inaccurate opinion polls for the Democratic contest involving Obama, those same polls accurately predicted the outcome of that state's Republican contest, featuring only white candidates.

While their cause continues to be debated—for example, many polls underpoll African-Americans and young voters—the pollsters' errors have raised expectations that as the presidential primary season progresses, Obama's polling numbers will be widely scrutinized as analysts try to definitively determine whether the Bradley effect has become a significant factor in the race.

When Obama first threw his hat into the ring, my observation was that some blacks were afraid to get behind him because they didn't want to get their hopes up or thought Obama would be assassinated and wanted to "protect" him. A lot of that changed after Iowa.

Regardless of how this story ends, I'm proud of him for making it this far. It's never been done before.

What the fluck is going on with the Clintons? Why in the hell won't they go away? Just the other day, Bill said the constitution sets the qualifications of a president instead of saying he personally thought Obama was qualified to be president. Now Hillary and some of her supporters are saying they should be heard at the convention. I thought they had already been heard and rejected. Bill Clinton and Hillary are the Democrats worse nightmare. I won't even mention how they're treating us after we tired on them. Could it be Hillary knows she won't make the list of vice presidents?

The ominous quote for me was Bill said he would have more to say in January. I'm thinking, why don't you just shut up. If he shut up, we could get over it and believe him when he says he has no personal animosity towards O for jamming Hill at the line of scrimmage and intercepting the nomination meant for her. What happened to being a good sport?

Man held in Fla. on charge of threatening Obama