Just a clarification on election history: Neither Gore nor Kerry were ever ahead in October.

[Zynx]

Maybe in one poll or another, but never even close in an average of polls. People who say so are liars and reinventing history. They should be torn limb from limb for inventing an alternate version of reality.

http://pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm
http://pollingreport.com/2004.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

[Zynx]

1. I'm going to kick this because this is tremendously important.

[tekisui]

2. It is not 2000. It is not 2004.

Obama, thank god, is not Gore nor Kerry.

It is why we are winning.

[Zynx]

4. People have been trying to draw the comparisons. I am setting the record straight.

[blm]

35. Baloney - We're winning POSTKatrina, POSTIraqCivilWar, POSTRecordHomeForeclosures, and

we have a DNC that actually spent its 4yrs strengthening party infrastructure in states that previous chairs had left collapsed.

Gore and Kerry won. RNC stole those elections and DNC let them do it. Obama would be having a helluva time getting his votes counted, too, if McAuliffe ran the DNC the last 4yrs the way it was run the previous 8.

And NEWSFLASH: The Dem nominee has been expected to prevail since Nov2006. Obama is running a great campaign and he is also smart enough to know that there are a number of factors that have been in play.

[tekisui]

36. I agree on all those points, but disagree with the assertion

that suggests ANY Dem nominee would be winning right now. Obama has implemented a mobilization/grassroots/netroots effort that I don't believe some of the others are capable of.

[politicasista]

38. And some of those

people he has on his staff are from Kerry's campaign. Plus, Kerry is Obama's top surrogate, but that won't stop people from putting him down to praise Obama. And Obama has Dean's 50 state strategy, while Gore and Kerry were stuck with McAuliffe's dreadful disorganized party infrastructure.

[blm]

39. ANY nominee TAPS INTO the Dem party infrastructure that EXISTS. Dean's DNC worked on rebuilding

collapsed infrastructures state by state, which helped us win 2006, and helped Obama win the primary by wresting control of those states from Clinton loyalists who oversaw their collapse in the first place.

Yes, Obama is adding mightily for some obvious reasons, but if you really believe that putting him at the head of the ticket in 2000 or 2004 would have made all the difference, then you don't understand how badly collapsed the Dem party infrastructure had been. It takes YEARS to build it and strengthen it to the point where it can make a difference in the election process and especially at every level of the process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted - the RNC and GOP officials strongarmed that process in 2000, 2002 and 2004, and the DNC sat on their hands and let them do it.

[tekisui]

40. Points taken.

This couldn't have happened in 2000 or 2004.

[blm]

41. Exactly - and guess what, teki...it was ALL OF US who helped strengthen the Dem party, too.

Pat yourself on the back, too. ;)

[politicasista]

37. No, but he has some of Kerry's people working for him

and they understand and know a lot more than we do.

[midnight]

3. I think your post is helpful if, and that is a big if, we don't factor in

the fact that some of us believe Gore won, and Kerry won. So it would mean even if Gore and Kerry were not ahead in Ocober they still won.

[scheming daemons]

5. Actually, that makes his post MORE helpful.....

They were behind in the polls... but still "won"..... Obama is AHEAD in the polls... means he'll win bigger.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. I'm inclined to agree, but here's the devil's advocate...

If Gore and Kerry were behind in October and still "won", that leaves the potential for McCain to do the same.

[demokatgurrl]

6. But Obama, being ahead now, should have a bigger win- of course

I would feel a LOT more comfortable if he were ahead by about 15 points. Much harder to steal.

[Zynx]

7. Well, then its even better because Gore and Kerry improved 4-5 points between mid-October and Nov.

[KsStorm]

10. This is on

the main AOL news page,about McCain maybe making a comeback...
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/is-it-too-late-for-a-mccain-comeback/215417?icid=200100397x1210957887x1200719499
my god if these fools get in we are all SOOOO screwed,& will be the laughing stock all over the world.

[ProSense]

8. What are you trying to prove?

Some of those polls show Kerry ahead by 1 or two points. Some show Bush and Kerry tied. All are within a MoE, a statistical dead heat.

Maybe you need to read this and this.

[Zynx]

9. Look at the numbers more carefully.

I will get back to you when you do. Click around a little bit.

[ProSense]

11. Those numbers don't prove shit.

The Republicans disenfranchised 350,000 voters in Ohio and more than a half a million in Florida.

You have no clue about the polls in 2004, as all them toward the end oversampled Republicans. In fact, it got so bad that they people demande that they publish the sample demographic in articles citing polls.

[Zynx]

13. I remember the polls well. I remember what they showed and I remember the internals.

My point remains that Gore and Kerry were a full 8-10 points weaker than Obama is right now. The electorate changed. In 2004 it probably was about dead nuts even between Republicans and Democrats. Now, that is certainly not the case.

[ProSense]

17. Who cares if they were weaker. What does that prove? Did Gore win the popular vote?

You are trying to compare apples and oranges. It's BS.

[beachmom]

42. It was a mixed bag AND Bush was pretty ahead for a time

until the first debate. I think that solidifies voters, who are gone forever. Also, Bush was ahead in more battleground states than not. SUSA was the main polling outfit that had Kerry ahead in FL and OH.

I think the bump Obama received these last three weeks have solidified some voters, some of whom have already voted. I think the race will tighten, but that Obama has the better ground campaign.

[ProSense]

14. "They should be torn limb from limb for inventing an alternate version of reality."

Yeah, this is rational.

[Zynx]

15. It's metaphoric. Grow up. They are liars and they know it too.

[ProSense]

20. Grow up? Maybe you need to open your eyes and realize that

touting Bush's insignificant lead in polls before the 2004 election is silly given all the known flaws and scandals associated with 2004.

[leftynyc]

12. Check this out

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Average of polls for 2004. Bush was ahead in 90+% of them. The largest lead for Kerry was 2% in a CBS poll.

[ProSense]

16. Wow,

RCP Average FINAL 50.0% 48.5%

Polls within the MoE.

Get a grip, the Republican cheated in 2004.

[Zynx]

If the polls don't prove it conclusively, we are just operating on conjecture.

I have never subscribed to the Bush cheated in 2004 line. The evidence is weak and often horribly incorrect.

[scheming daemons]

18. You're missing the entire point of the OP

There are people concerned that Obama's trajectory is following the same as Kerry and Gore. It's not.


If anything, MCCAIN is on the trajectory that Kerry was on 4 years ago.

[ProSense]

21. No, it's a stupid point

as stupid as claiming that Kerry never pulled ahead after the Dem Convention.

Also, the electoral map is based on state polls, and they had Kerry ahead as late as |Oct. 20

[Zynx]

24. He never pulled ahead to any measure of statistical significance.

And you sir are a moron.

[ProSense]

27. "statistical significance"? Non of the polls at the link show a statistically significant lead.

And you have the nerve to call someone a moron?

I'm not a sir, ass!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

25. Not in the average of all the polls..... Kerry never led in October... and never was ahead in EVs

if you AVERAGE the polls.


Yes... you can find an outlier or two where Kerry was ahead.



Right now.... you can't even find an OUTLIER where McCain is ahead.

[ProSense]

28. That's

false

[leftynyc]

19. What exactly do you want me to get a grip

on and who shit in your corn flakes? Do you think you need to remind anyone on this board what happened in 2004?

[HughMoran]

23. Simple facts

Amazing that some people have a difficult time comprehending simple mathematical facts.

...and look at the state polling back then - Kerry was a long-shot from the git-go on election day.

[ProSense]

30. Simple facts

The Republican cheated in 2004.

Comprehend that.

[HughMoran]

33. No, I'm not listening to you

You're on a rant-happy post frenzy and it makes you look hot-headed.

[ProSense]

34. That's one way to deny reality.

You can dispute the information at the links as incorrect or pretend it doesn't exist.

[leftynyc]

32. The polls show a remarkable

stability, especially at the end. Kerry closed in but not enough. Sen Obama is in a much better position than Kerry or Gore was at the same time in 2004 or 2000. I don't believe in complacency and have stated on this board that I wouldn't mind the polls getting closer in order to scare the hell out of everybody. It's the only way to get them out to vote. That doesn't mean these polls aren't good news for Sen Obama.

[demnan]

22. It's really a state by state race

the state wide polls are the most important because they show how many electoral votes will be picked up. I think Obama's got it, but I'm going to continue to canvass as if its neck and neck.

[HughMoran]

26. It is neck-and-neck

I'm going to continue to believe that it's tied until election day, because it may very well be, though I agree, Obama's state-by-state numbers are looking much better than any recent election.