McCain takes lead over Obama?

I don't fully understand the positions of either candidate on all these policies they've spoken about, but I've been pretty dedicated to anyone who talks about alternate energy. Maybe Obama has the same stance, but I figured I'd be with Obama since McCain had a commerical where he was pushing legally drilling more in the US as his 'new energy'. From what I understand drilling == using up natural resources which is kind of a limited amount.

Anyways, I think it's pretty obvious how Obama is quite more targetted towards the younger crowds and McCain the older crowds for the most part. Some magazine just asked the two about what they listened to on their iPods, McCain had generally older artists while Obama had also older but also a number of more recent artists.

Obama: "Hey McCain, what do you think about the new Jay-Z cd?"
McCain: "What's a Jay-Z?"*

*Note: Joke biased.

As far as I can tell the polls right now just don't mean that much. It's still not a *good* sign for Obama, but once the VPs are picked and the candidates start seriously campaigning, it could go either way.

It's not surprising that the polls would start to tighten as election day nears. Where they stand after the conventions is more important. Meanwhile, in the electoral college where it matters:

realclearpolitics Obama 264 McCain 274

electoral-vote.com Obama 264 McCain 261 Tossup 13

fivethirtyeight.com Obama 281.4 McCain 256.6

pollster.com Obama 260 McCain 191 Tossup 87

I go by the odds at CentreBet, an Aussie online betting service that allows betting on elections amongst other things, and Obama has still got a clear lead.

It's currently:
OBAMA, Barack: 1.40
MCCAIN, John: 2.85

A couple of weeks back Obama dropped to 1.45, but he seems to have bounced back.

from the point that a canidate is the clear party favorite in the primary until the party national convention is typicaly known as the "dog days" of a presidential campaign. Lots of fundrasiers, but not much new on the soundbite front. Really though this point of the campaign is where the party comes together behind the candidate and a foundation is layied inorder to draw in a wider base of support. Also the party whom is behind usualy takes the oppertunity to try to close the gap.

The "real" campaign doesn't truely start until after the party conventions. And won't become a full on slugging match until October.



But of course LessBread is right. The electoral college elects the president. Your popular vote is basicly only used to decide which way your state's electorites vote...been that way sense George Washington.

A Democrat walked into my office earlier this morning and asked if I'd seen the quasi-"debate" between McCain and Obama last night. He said he was surprised to see it be so completely lopsided. He said McCain crushed Obama in the debate.

Anyone else see this, or have a link to a video?

You can probably find it at CNN or CSPAN searching on Saddleback or Rick Warren.

I saw it. Obama gave non-stump speech answers, McCain gave stump speech answers. The conservative Christian crowd in attendance was more receptive to McCain's message. For Obama it was a trip to the lion's den.

Quote:

Original post by MSW But of course LessBread is right. The electoral college elects the president. Your popular vote is basicly only used to decide which way your state's electorites vote...been that way sense George Washington.

Actually, the 12th Amendment changed things slightly. Originally, the Constitution assigned the Vice Presidency to the candidate who came in second in the electoral college. Once parties were formed that approach no longer worked very well (the Vice President worked at cross purposes to the President) so the Constitution was amended so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for president and vice president (United States Constitution). See also United States presidential election, 1796

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I go by the odds at CentreBet, an Aussie online betting service that allows betting on elections amongst other things, and Obama has still got a clear lead. It's currently: OBAMA, Barack: 1.40 MCCAIN, John: 2.85 A couple of weeks back Obama dropped to 1.45, but he seems to have bounced back.

yes I trust this far more than polls as the results are more accurate, amazing how when moneys at stake the relability improves ;)

here in NZ election this year, I see national's odds have even further shortened
labour $3.70
national $1.26

I remember saying a couple of months ago (when nation was paying ~$1.40, that is was a bet to spend your lifesavings on)

Quote:

Original post by programmermattc I don't fully understand the positions of either candidate on all these policies they've spoken about, but I've been pretty dedicated to anyone who talks about alternate energy. Maybe Obama has the same stance, but I figured I'd be with Obama since McCain had a commerical where he was pushing legally drilling more in the US as his 'new energy'. From what I understand drilling == using up natural resources which is kind of a limited amount. Anyways, I think it's pretty obvious how Obama is quite more targetted towards the younger crowds and McCain the older crowds for the most part. Some magazine just asked the two about what they listened to on their iPods, McCain had generally older artists while Obama had also older but also a number of more recent artists. Obama: "Hey McCain, what do you think about the new Jay-Z cd?" McCain: "What's a Jay-Z?"* *Note: Joke biased.

Yes, there is quite a distinction in the audiences of the two candidates, which is a shame, really, for both parties. I think a lot of people just go with their peers, and only widen the schism, rather than doing any thinking of their own, whether they are young or old.

And just to be clear, I don't totally buy into the authority of this poll, either. After re-reading my post I felt like it might seem that way. I just was surprised that any poll would show this result.

Lessbread - I find it interesting that one of those polls has McCain down by 70, and another has him up by 10. Am I correct in assuming these polls aren't related in any way? Is this because of differing polling techniques, or what?

Quote:

Original post by bschneid Lessbread - I find it interesting that one of those polls has McCain down by 70, and another has him up by 10. Am I correct in assuming these polls aren't related in any way? Is this because of differing polling techniques, or what?

With the american voluntary voting system, after conducting polls the pollsters have to use some sort of metric to work out what percentage of each demographic will actually turn out to vote.

My understanding is that while the surveys themselves are usually fairly standard, the "metrics" for voter turnout essentially amount to guessing, and vary widely between the differnet pollsters.

Quote:

Original post by MSW from the point that a canidate is the clear party favorite in the primary until the party national convention is typicaly known as the "dog days" of a presidential campaign. Lots of fundrasiers, but not much new on the soundbite front. Really though this point of the campaign is where the party comes together behind the candidate and a foundation is layied inorder to draw in a wider base of support. Also the party whom is behind usualy takes the oppertunity to try to close the gap. The "real" campaign doesn't truely start until after the party conventions. And won't become a full on slugging match until October. But of course LessBread is right. The electoral college elects the president. Your popular vote is basicly only used to decide which way your state's electorites vote...been that way sense George Washington.

I'm usually not such a grammar nazi, but dear God! You need to work on spelling and grammar son! At least download firefox and use its built-in spell check! I can understand if English isn't your first language, but I suspect you're American.

Quote:

Original post by programmermattc I don't fully understand the positions of either candidate on all these policies they've spoken about, but I've been pretty dedicated to anyone who talks about alternate energy. Maybe Obama has the same stance, but I figured I'd be with Obama since McCain had a commerical where he was pushing legally drilling more in the US as his 'new energy'. From what I understand drilling == using up natural resources which is kind of a limited amount. Anyways, I think it's pretty obvious how Obama is quite more targetted towards the younger crowds and McCain the older crowds for the most part. Some magazine just asked the two about what they listened to on their iPods, McCain had generally older artists while Obama had also older but also a number of more recent artists. Obama: "Hey McCain, what do you think about the new Jay-Z cd?" McCain: "What's a Jay-Z?"* *Note: Joke biased.

Alternative energy is obviously a very hot idea that could fix some thing. Unfortunately, I think that whenever a candidate discusses the issue, the "alternative energy" discussed is some largely infeasible "solution." Example, everyone discusses biofuels as a solution to oil prices/dependencies but it is rare that anyone even hints at the true cause of the problem: the inherent inefficiencies of the modern automobile.

Actually, Obama was the only person in the running for the presidency (when parties were still battling it out) that said the country needs to drive less and in other ways cut back. I think this is a great step in the right direction. Props to Obama on that one.

Quote:

Original post by bschneid Lessbread - I find it interesting that one of those polls has McCain down by 70, and another has him up by 10. Am I correct in assuming these polls aren't related in any way? Is this because of differing polling techniques, or what?

Every pollster has their own way of doing things. Those links track how the candidates are doing in the electoral college. They look at polls for all 50 states and tally the results from there. The link with McCain down by 70 has 87 electoral votes up for grabs. That likely means that site decided against allocating those votes to either candidate, probably because the difference between the two candidates in polls from whichever states make up the 87 votes is within the margin of error. What that tally shows is that Obama has a solid 260 votes and McCain has a solid 191 votes and the other 87 could go either way. You'll have to examine that site more closely to determine where those 87 votes come from. It takes 270 votes to win, so according to that site, Obama is a lot closer to the finish line than McCain. Of course, it's important to remember that polls are only snapshots of the past. They don't tell you how things are right now or how they will be on election day (which is the ultimate poll). Polls tell you how things were yesterday. At each of those links there should be a general explanation of the methods used, but don't expect them to give away all their secrets. For example: How We Choose Polls to Plot: Part III.

The Reuters/Zogby poll has gotten a lot of attention. To me that reflects two biases in the corporate media. 1. They want a close race because they think that a close race will mean more viewers and thus more revenue for them. 2. They want McCain to win because the GOP is more likely to give them what they want in Congress and at the FCC. The supposed over-hyping of Obama's campaign is itself over-hype. The corporate media has applied much greater scrutiny to Obama, but that coverage hasn't been uniformly positive. Nevertheless, Republicans have been complaining about it and it's very possible that the corporate media could respond to those complaints by turning up the heat on Obama. Meanwhile, the corporate media has let McCain get away with saying anything. Yesterday he stated that he did not disagree with the notion that the draft should be reinstated (McCain On Reinstituting A Military Draft: ‘I Don’t Disagree’). I hope a reporter has the courage to ask him to clarify his position on that subject.

At any rate, other pollsters are skeptical of the Reuters/Zogby poll: The "Loopy" Zogby Polls. Only three days ago Zogby had Obama in the lead by three points. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that came out yesterday has Obama in the lead by three points: McCain Closes Gap on Obama In Poll as Conventions Loom. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll from yesterday also has Obama up by three points: Voters in Poll Want Priority to Be Economy, Their Top Issue.

RE: Alternative energy

Here's an interesting article: Warm Globe: Google Invests $10 Million in Geothermal

Quote:

The basic idea is to drill deep enough into earth so water can be heated by the magma and returned to the surface with sufficient energy as to drive electricity making turbines. A recent report out of MIT estimated that by just tapping into 2 percent of the heat between two-seven miles beneath the Earth's crust, in the continental US, could produce 2,500 times the countries entire annual energy.

If this is true and the source of energy is financially and technologically feasible, then it's possible to completely solve our energy crisis. We'd have a near infinite source of energy by tapping the internal heat of the earths crust.

All cars and transportation could switch over to high performance electric cars. We'd no longer have to worry about bio-fuels and energy would be so cheap and plentiful that it would be given away for free. Only the rich would drive gasoline powered cars.

Quote:

Original post by slayemin RE: Alternative energy Here's an interesting article: Warm Globe: Google Invests $10 Million in Geothermal Quote: The basic idea is to drill deep enough into earth so water can be heated by the magma and returned to the surface with sufficient energy as to drive electricity making turbines. A recent report out of MIT estimated that by just tapping into 2 percent of the heat between two-seven miles beneath the Earth's crust, in the continental US, could produce 2,500 times the countries entire annual energy. If this is true and the source of energy is financially and technologically feasible, then it's possible to completely solve our energy crisis. We'd have a near infinite source of energy by tapping the internal heat of the earths crust. All cars and transportation could switch over to high performance electric cars. We'd no longer have to worry about bio-fuels and energy would be so cheap and plentiful that it would be given away for free. Only the rich would drive gasoline powered cars.

small problem: we consume more energy than the Earth produces in heat. I don't even want to think of what the ramifications of bolting a giant heat-sink to the Earth's core would be.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by slayemin RE: Alternative energy Here's an interesting article: Warm Globe: Google Invests $10 Million in Geothermal Quote: The basic idea is to drill deep enough into earth so water can be heated by the magma and returned to the surface with sufficient energy as to drive electricity making turbines. A recent report out of MIT estimated that by just tapping into 2 percent of the heat between two-seven miles beneath the Earth's crust, in the continental US, could produce 2,500 times the countries entire annual energy. If this is true and the source of energy is financially and technologically feasible, then it's possible to completely solve our energy crisis. We'd have a near infinite source of energy by tapping the internal heat of the earths crust. All cars and transportation could switch over to high performance electric cars. We'd no longer have to worry about bio-fuels and energy would be so cheap and plentiful that it would be given away for free. Only the rich would drive gasoline powered cars. small problem: we consume more energy than the Earth produces in heat. I don't even want to think of what the ramifications of bolting a giant heat-sink to the Earth's core would be.

Do you have figures for that? I find it hard to believe that humans use more energy than the earth produces in heat.

Regardless, every time anyone mentions geothermal energy I always have to wonder what exactly the consequences of cooling the earth's core would be.

Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight small problem: we consume more energy than the Earth produces in heat.

Dividing the 10^17 kg of Uranium in Earth's crust by its halflife (4 * 10^9) and again by two one gets somewhat less than the amount of Uranium that spontaneously undergoes radioactive decay in the Earth's crust (down to 25 km of depth) every year, that is 10^7 kilograms or ten thousand tons. Multiply by the energy density of natural uranium 24,000,000 MJ/kg and indeed what amounts is only 2.5 10^20 J, half the world's energy consumption. Add to that Thorium, of which there is three times more than Uranium but which has a half life three times as long and we about break even.

Go below the crust and you get many thousands of times more heat produced by radioactivity.

Quote:

I don't even want to think of what the ramifications of bolting a giant heat-sink to the Earth's core would be.

None whatsoever. The planet is big and we are tiny. Of course there will be a certain degree of local cooling, leading to effective local depletion of the geothermal resource.

[Edited by - Diodor on August 22, 2008 10:35:16 AM]

Quote:

Original post by Samith Quote: Original post by capn_midnight Quote: Original post by slayemin RE: Alternative energy Here's an interesting article: Warm Globe: Google Invests $10 Million in Geothermal Quote: The basic idea is to drill deep enough into earth so water can be heated by the magma and returned to the surface with sufficient energy as to drive electricity making turbines. A recent report out of MIT estimated that by just tapping into 2 percent of the heat between two-seven miles beneath the Earth's crust, in the continental US, could produce 2,500 times the countries entire annual energy. If this is true and the source of energy is financially and technologically feasible, then it's possible to completely solve our energy crisis. We'd have a near infinite source of energy by tapping the internal heat of the earths crust. All cars and transportation could switch over to high performance electric cars. We'd no longer have to worry about bio-fuels and energy would be so cheap and plentiful that it would be given away for free. Only the rich would drive gasoline powered cars. small problem: we consume more energy than the Earth produces in heat. I don't even want to think of what the ramifications of bolting a giant heat-sink to the Earth's core would be. Do you have figures for that? I find it hard to believe that humans use more energy than the earth produces in heat. Regardless, every time anyone mentions geothermal energy I always have to wonder what exactly the consequences of cooling the earth's core would be.

Nobody knows exactly how much heat the earth produces in the first place. Either way 10 miles won't even penetrate the earths crust and isn't going to have any real effect on the earths core temperature in the next billion or so years.