Yet, aside from actual voting (which only occurs during the primary and in November, and offers little concrete evidence of the general election tendencies, otherwise McCain would have little chance at victory because he received anemic vote totals in most primaries and little support from conservative voters), time-sequential polling is perhaps the best option available to campaigns.

I don’t believe the primaries are a good indicator of performance in November. If that was the case, these campaigns would not be spending gobs of money and time in states they did not win in the primaries (McCain in Nevada for example, Obama in New Mexico).

Time-sequential polls are going to inform these candidates and their campaigns more than anything else I can think of at this time. I welcome learning about some other method that will be as important right now, aside from focus groups.

So take your turn.

The rest of your comment on the subjects is, as you say, “moot,” until
you do so.”

Excuse me while I kick myself for not being one of the pollsters getting paid reasonably well by campaigns and the media alike to sit on my butt in an A/C office throughout the summer and autumn and ask people simple questions about candidates and their voter preferences.
Obviously, this is some sort of charity service that serves no purpose at all and
the donors don’t mind their money being wasted paying for this service.

The strategy sessions where the campaigns decide which states to contest by pouring millions into ad buys, internal polling (oops, we don’t do internal polling, that’s time-sequential!) and campaign stops and which to not contest are informed strictly by past voting results.

That’s why McCain is contesting New Jersey, California and Washington heavily (even though Republicans haven’t won there since Reagan and Bush I) while Obama is going after Colorado, Virginia and Iowa (even though Bush won those in ‘00 and ‘04).

As CGW remarked, its useless. I give up with you on this.

How you can construe facts (daily and weekly polls taken since May) with rhetoric is amusing.

You are attacking time-sequential polling without offering facts or evidence to back your claims. When someone presents evidence and facts, and you seek to discredit or render their point moot, you would tend to come to the table with evidence, facts and logic of your own, instead of a blanket assertion.

You are certainly intelligent and insightful, which is why I requested you back your assertions that we shouldn’t pay attention to polls with a post explaining why so many are so wrong at the cost of so many millions of dollars. I am certain McCain, Obama and thousands of people on their staffs, in the media and even at the White House would learn something from it.

IF you are against polls, then say so. I’d love to be educated via a post that explains how polls are wrong and a big waste of the tens of millions of dollars that campaigns spend on them as well as the news media that examines them from A to Z on a daily basis every night. Come to think of it, please also explain how aside from New Hampshire (then again, several lesser regarded polls showed latebreakers moving to Hillary), the polls were within the margin of error nearly every time this primary cycle?

Or (b) admit your clearly flawed logic for Obama’s lack of majority support in the general from women & Latinos in the primaries is equal to McCain’s lack of majority support from conservatives in the primaries?

The polls do show weaknesses across the board for both candidates. It just so happens that right now McCain has more of those weaknesses, especially less support from women (Supposed to be mad at Obama right?), less support from Hispanics (supposed to love Mac the immigration reform champion right?) and less support from independents (supposed to be his strong suit, McCain’s the maverick right?) than Obama.

You assert that the polls show weakness for John McCain if you use time-sequencing, but then you refuse to support time-sequencing as not an issue at hand.

Your claim makes no sense unless you assume something, but you then refuse to defend that thing.

So you can:

a) withdraw your use of time-sequenced poll analysis, or
b) defend your use of time-sequenced poll analysis

Otherwise, if you’re just venting without a rational basis (or don’t want to share that basis), do it somewhere else.

You still haven’t defended why time-sequencing is the best method here.

If you’re going to comment on a blog, at least answer questions when they are put to you.

Curtis,

Are you suggesting that Obama should not remain in control of his own campaign for the presidency? Patti Solis Doyle is only the chief-of-staff for the VP during the campaign, not into perpetuity; as Obama said on MSNBC:

“I think that she will bring not only a set of skills that we’re gonna need as we put our ticket together but shes going to be a terrific adviser and offer insight and judgment that will help us.”

“as we put our ticket together.”

You interpret this vague statement as saying that Doyle will be dismissed from her post on January 2009?

If not, can we call Obama a liar or flip-flopper?

If so, do you have him saying this more clearly?

Obama’s statement is another example of his vague, adaptible rhetoric. It says nothing, implies whatever you want it to imply, and does not limit his future action.

What is the point of the link on the second comment? It demonstrates nothing.

PRCalDude,

The link comes up with a Page Load Error.

Obviously, Republican hostility toward hispanics has hurt the Republican brand. This is too bad. I support a strong America, and so oppose those who want to limit our wealth, our population, or our territory. Hence I oppose anti-growth environmentalists and anti-growth nativists with equal disdain.

This could get worse for McCain if immigration legislation is pursued again in the fall. He’ll have to choose which constituency to offend: angry whites who dislike illegal immigration and view him (wrongly) as an “amnesty” supporter, or Hispanics who may view him as just another Republican.

Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has already taken a stand on the issue. The choice of whether to continue waffling is Obama’s.

Good thing McCain has two legs to stand on! That way he can straddle the issue, depending on who is his primary audience at the time. [1]

[1] http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title—-mcca-1.html