| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The fragile morale of the Obamanuts |
| 2008-10-22 |
| Jim Geraghty, "Campaign Spot" @ National Review There's been an interesting phenomenon at work lately when I post about polling news that makes the race appear not quite so dire for McCain. I've written that the Republican ticket faces an uphill climb. I've pointed to "astonishingly ominous indicators for GOP prospects." I've been told never to give a pep talk to a guy standing on a ledge. And yet some liberal readers are driven into a fury each time I point to something that suggests their guy might not win, or might not win by a landslide. And it's clearly ratcheted up in recent days. Kos himself felt the need to snicker at the post about the Nickelodeon poll. Now, in that post, I pointed out how far the Nick poll's margin had been from actual results for the past four cycles. I didn't say that it was an ironclad guarantee of the outcome, but that a poll of children might give a sense of what they were hearing at the dinner table from their parents. That point was echoed by that noted right-wing propagandist Linda Ellerbee at Nickelodeon. (Anybody else got a theory on why a poll of children puts Obama up, 51-49? Some pro-McCain messages in SpongeBob SquarePants or something?) And if I'm silly for putting up a post about the Nick poll, how about... Daily Kos diarists? Or the Washington Post? So what's going on here? These folks are who they are; I'm not expecting discourse beyond their usual "YOU SUCK" level. But why are they so bothered by one guy saying that a landslide isn't inevitable? Why does "your guy might not win" send them into paroxysms of rage? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #7 If I remember correctly didn't polls have kerry ahead of bush 4 years ago. I also believe Gore was ahead 4 years before that too. Well obviously polls have an issue with their accuracy and for many good reason. Mostly I think that Elitist Illuminati Liberals participate in the polls. I mean according to the polls right now, I should be begging Obama to take office now so I can be more patriotic and pay more taxes as we all become part of the larger United Countries of the World! Blah! |
| Posted by: Threamp Grundy1028 2008-10-22 21:36 |
| #6 What I cannot believe, after all these years is that some 21 states I believe it is, do not require positive photo identification at the polls. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-22 18:17 |
| #5 It's all about depressing Repub voter turnout. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-10-22 17:37 |
| #4 Actually Ibis it works the other way. You want people to believe in a landslide because crushed morale of the enemy means a sloppier campaign and more likely mistakes. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-22 16:40 |
| #3 If my guy were way ahead and cruising to an easy victory, the very LAST thing I would do is tell that to people. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-10-22 12:16 |
| #2 Speaking as a statistician, the Nickleodeon poll has a bias in the fact that it, obviouly, predicts only the vote of people with yopung children. Gays, singles, childless couples, people whose youngest child is a teenager or an adult, retirees are not represented. Also if you adopt the rule of "very children a vote" without ponderating for family size then childs of large families are overrepresnated. Notice however that between the factors I have mentionned some of them favour Obama and others McCain. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-22 11:26 |
| #1 The whole DUmmie FUnnies website is premised on the bipolar mindstate of the loony leftists, just check atround a bit, you'll see threads of DUmmies moral going way up or crashing down, with all the concordant wild-eyeness and craziness, according to the polls day. If the Goatse man couldn't win, this would be funny, but thinking those loons actually can cast a vote decidedly comfort me in my wariness of anything even remotely democratic (and I do mean the process). |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-10-22 11:26 |