Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (44603)	9/4/2008 5:40:31 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224868

Nope. Early polls are not important. The only polls that become significant are in the last week and of course the big one on Election Day. Go to the article I posted this week on polls from Forbes. In case you missed it---------- To: Brumar89 who wrote (44091) 9/3/2008 11:28:36 AM From: MJ 1 Recommendation of 44612 From Forbes Magazine Sept. 2, 2008 International Early Election POLLS Are Often Misleading Oxford Analytica 09.02.08, 6:00 AM ET Coverage of the presidential "horse race" invariably crowds out more substantive coverage of policy issues, and the heavy media coverage of polling can also be misleading. While polling, though still imperfect, does have some predictive capacity in the days before an election, it is quite unreliable months before. These early POLLS are outperformed by political scientists' election forecasts based on the "fundamentals"--factors such as the state of the economy, the role of foreign wars and whether the incumbent president is running. At best, POLLS represent a snapshot of the electorate on a given day, rather than a forecast of the eventual outcome Yet even this modest view has its problems. A snapshot may be seen as worthless if it is clear that the picture must eventually change. In four of the last five presidential elections, the eventual popular vote winner has trailed in the POLLS at some point, often by a substantial margin. Moreover, these changes are often predictable, as shifts usually move in the direction suggested by forecasts based on readings of "bread and peace": the state of the economy and U.S. standing abroad. Go to original message for complete article and more------ mj

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (44603)	9/4/2008 5:44:28 PM
From: DizzyG	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224868

Obama's vanishing money advantage September 04, 2008 Ed Lasky We have heard quite a lot over the past year about Barack Obama's fundraising prowess. But the good times may be over. Now it suddenly appears that John McCain and his campaign are no slouches in this area. The announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate has changed things. The Wall Street Journal reports on the state of the money race: ...it appears Sen. Obama's money advantage is far smaller than it was assumed to be early on. [....] Fund-raising reports through July show that the DNC and Sen. Obama have raised about $150 million but spent much of it already; going into August, the campaign reported having $68.5 million on hand. The reports also showed that in July, the campaign was spending at a rate that was faster than donations were coming in. The Obama campaign declined to comment on its fund raising or spending in August. One major donor said it is likely the campaign has only a small cash cushion at the moment. The Obama campaign's best reported fund-raising month was in February when it raised $55 million; to meet the goal, it will have to do far better in August and September. [....] Big fund-raisers are becoming increasingly important to the Obama campaign, which has long touted its broad stable of small donors. Sen. Obama is devoting much more time to big-donor fund raising than he used to. In early August, the Obama campaign added a class of $500,000 fund-raisers -- a doubling of the old top level. Sen. Obama has about 40 of these fund-raisers, compared with about 60 for Sen. McCain So Obama is running a campaign that is spending too much money and failing to deliver the promised benefits? Kind of like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge or the Democrats' social programs. Is anyone surprised? americanthinker.com