Polls Show Obama Gaining Among Bush Voters

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Times

Polls Show Obama Gaining Among Bush Voters

By JIM RUTENBERG and MARJORIE CONNELLY
Published: October 23, 2008
Senator Barack Obama is showing surprising strength among portions of the political coalition that returned George W. Bush to the White House four years ago, a cross section of support that, if it continues through Election Day, would exceed that of Bill Clinton in 1992, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News polls.

Underscoring his increasing strength in the final phase of the campaign, Mr. Obama led Mr. McCain among groups that voted for President Bush four years ago: those with incomes greater than $50,000 a year; married women; suburbanites and white Catholics. He is also competitive among white men, a group that has not voted for a Democrat over a Republican since 1972, when pollsters began surveying people after they voted.

Of potential concern for Mr. Obama’s strategists, however, a third of voters surveyed say they know someone who does not support Mr. Obama because he is black.

Over all, however, the poll found that Mr. Obama would defeat Mr. McCain if the election were held now, with 52 percent of those identified as probable voters saying they would vote for Mr. Obama and 39 percent saying they would vote for Mr. McCain. Among registered voters in the latest poll, the spread is almost identical, with 51 percent saying they would vote for Mr. Obama and 38 percent saying they would vote for Mr. McCain. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken a week ago showed a similar margin of victory for Mr. Obama.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24poll.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1225080000&en=e931bc5317323329&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

---

[Politicalboi]

1. Yup Magoo has Obama

Just where he wants him. :rofl:

[mdavies013]

2. "a third of voters surveyed say they know someone who does not support Mr. Obama because he is black

....isn't that the republican base.

[Peace Patriot]

3. "the political coalition that returned George W. Bush to the White House four years ago"

"...the political coalition that returned George W. Bush to the White House four years ago..."
"...among groups that voted for President Bush four years ago."

-------

Who voted for Bush four years ago has not been--and cannot be--verified. Our election system was rendered 100% non-transparent during the 2002 to 2004 period, with the fast-tracking, all over the country, of electronic voting systems run on 'TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushwhack corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls.

Indeed, there is hardly a member of Congress, or a public official anywhere in this country, who can prove that he or she was actually elected. The entire edifice of the government is built on nothing--on electrons flying around in cyberspace, manipulated by SECRET CODE that the public is not permitted to review.

No statistics from such elections can be relied upon, and no analysis based on those statistics can be trusted.

The same is true of the upcoming election. We will be told that Obama won--or, God forbid, that McCain won--but we will have NO WAY TO VERIFY EITHER THING.

Half the voting systems in the country have no paper ballot or paper trail of any kind. No recount is possible because there is nothing TO recount. And no audit is conducted. The other half may have a paper ballot, but 99% of those ballots are not counted. A 1% audit is not nearly enough to detect fraud in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system.

We have to go back to basics--things a third grader could tell the New York Times. Did they count the votes as cast? There is no way to tell, in half the voting systems in the country, and nobody bothers with an adequate check in the rest.

We don't know. We can't know.

---------

"Mr. Obama led Mr. McCain among groups that voted for President Bush..."

Groups don't vote. PEOPLE vote. So, unless they asked the people being polled who they voted for in 2004, these stats are as worthless as the doctored exit polls, which were forced--often in absurd ways--to match the results of Diebold & brethren's secret formulae.

If they did ask who they voted for, then the poll is a little more useful, but the baselines they are working from--Diebold & brethren's secretly arrived at "official results" and the forced-to-match exit polls are fundamentally unsound statistics. What the exit pollster did was, he said, "Well, Bush won--so says Diebold & pals--so, such and such a percentage of white women or Catholics or whatever had to have voted for Bush." (Note: The real exit polls--before they were doctored to match the machine totals--said that Kerry won by a 3% margin.)

You cannot use these stats to say that certain "groups" that "voted for Bush" are favoring Obama. Nobody knows if they did. And even if the poll asks them if they voted for Bush, we have only the anonymous word of the person being polled, four years later, as to the truth of it. I suspect they are working on the basis of percentages, say, of white women voters, taken from the doctored exit polls, and they call up that "group," assuming a percentage of Bush voters, and, if they are for Obama, assuming a switch.

In any case, no poll, and no political analysis, has validity if it does not acknowledge the unverifiability and non-transparency of the vote counting system throughout the country.

--------

Really, I don't know why presumably intelligent people, conducting presumably fact-based analysis, can't see the nose on their faces. Our vote counting system is BLATANTLY non-transparent. The system itself is fraudulent. We might as well be in Stalinist Russia with Stalin counting all the votes himself while getting pissed on vodka and whacking a few friends while he's at it. But, of course, these are the same people who brought us--or, I should say, didn't bring us--WMDs in Iraq. People full of hot air. Liars.