NationStates Jolt Archive

How could this be when every news channel reports as though Obama has already won the general election?


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mccain_trusted_more_than_obama_on_national_security_iraq_and_the_economy

One cannot discuss the accuracy of polls.

No. Dear, sweet Jesus, no. :(

Affirmative Action? lol

So that's how the Democrats are going to win this November!

That's a national number. State-by-state, Rasmussen has Obama up a few electoral votes on McCain if the election were held tomorrow. McCain will win the presidency in November, I'm fairly certain; however, the numbers don't say that right now. ;)

Affirmative Action? lol

That's a national number. State-by-state, Rasmussen has Obama up a few electoral votes on McCain if the election were held tomorrow. McCain will win the presidency in November, I'm fairly certain; however, the numbers don't say that right now. ;)

I have no idea who to vote for. Should I vote for the oldest fart to run for the presidency or the first African American? both are milestones. Which one is going to be the biggest liability?

One cannot discuss the accuracy of polls.

Well, subscribers to the site can access the raw numbers, and can probably discuss those. :p Rasmussen has been pretty accurate in the past, but numbers 8 months out are still numbers 8 months out.

If memory serves, said poll has an error margin of +/- 3%, meaning that McCain and Obama are pretty much tied right now.

But, honestly, talk to me AFTER the nominations are secured. Right now No one on the Democratic side is playing attention to McCain and once the general election starts, THEN we'll see how the polls are doing.

I have no idea who to vote for. Should I vote for the oldest fart to run for the presidency or the first African American? both are milestones. Which one is going to be the biggest liability?

McCain wouldn't be the oldest. Obama would be the first black, but "first martian" wouldn't be enough novelty for me to vote Democrat. :p Seriously though, voting based on race (even partially) probably isn't the best policy, even if he'd be the first.

i'm tempted to vote for myself. i think all three are AS-DUMB-AS-DEADWOOD.:mp5:

Born in the US? Over 35? I may cast a vote your way myself....

i'm tempted to vote for myself. i think all three are AS-DUMB-AS-DEADWOOD.:mp5:

McCain wouldn't be the oldest. Obama would be the first black, but "first martian" wouldn't be enough novelty for me to vote Democrat. :p Seriously though, voting based on race (even partially) probably isn't the best policy, even if he'd be the first.

Wait who was our oldest president then? I've heard reports from the TV that if McCain won he would be the oldest President the U.S. ever had.

Wait who was our oldest president then? I've heard reports from the TV that if McCain won he would be the oldest President the U.S. ever had.

Reagan was just shy of 70 when he was elected, making him 74 at his second inauguration. McCain's 71. He'd be the oldest elected to a first term, but not the oldest man to run for/win the presidency.

i'm tempted to vote for myself. i think all three are AS-DUMB-AS-DEADWOOD.:mp5:

When I used to race they'd put a big tape 'X' on the back of your helmet for your rookie year. Gun smilies are the big tape 'X' of forums...

The average of polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html) still favor Obama, but it's still early yet. McCain has the advantage of running against the Democrats now instead of other Republicans, so he's going to start doing better. His numbers will likely increase even more over the next few days. Once the Democratic Party has a nominee that will slow. Or pickup even more, who knows? You won't get a real good read on what's happening until Sept/Oct.

Reagan was just shy of 70 when he was elected, making him 74 at his second inauguration. McCain's 71. He'd be the oldest elected to a first term, but not the oldest man to run for/win the presidency.

Well at least I got a portion of something right. I hate making a complete idiot of myself but don't mind a dash of idiocy when it comes to the facts.

Obama and McCain are really ripping into each for two candidates who are supposed to be ignoring each other.

It's like Hillary doesn't even exist.

It's like Hillary doesn't even exist.

Ain't it great? :p It's win-win for me. :)

McCain would get the US into war with Iran within his first term easily.

McCain would get the US into war with Iran within his first term easily.

True. And not just Iran. The man loves war.

True. And not just Iran. The man loves war.

Yeah, 'cause he's had so many fun experiences involving war, right? ;)

Ah, I do love scare tactics.

McCain would get the US into war with Iran within his first term easily.

Have you seen this yet?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4359635&page=1



You needn't worry about him invading Iran. You should be more worried he will start war of Kosovo because he is the strongest supporter of Kosovo independence of all the candidates, having said he will attack Russia to keep Kosovo seperate from Serbia.

Barack Hussein Obama is a man of peace - And Hillary Clinton can drive.


The election will be won by the republicans - Minority candidate or a strong woman have no chance with the general voting public.

Kosovo will become a battlefield between Russia and America if Russia declares war..........

America should have woman for its next president.

Yeah, 'cause he's had so many fun experiences involving war, right? ;)

Ah, I do love scare tactics.

Ah, I do love reality deniers. Learn some more about your candidate, why don't you?

McCain would get the US into war with Iran within his first term easily.

Rare is the instance in which I agree with you, but in this case you are quite correct.

Hillary is not much better regarding Iran, and that is one of the principle reasons why I'm supporting Obama. He's the only candidate who seems to realize that even limited bombing of Iran is going to do more harm than good.

Let Israel do it and take the heat for it, if need be, but we've got enough problems right now.

Ah, I do love reality deniers. Learn some more about your candidate, why don't you?

If you want well-reasoned debate, you might want to avoid slurs and hyperbole.

If you want well-reasoned debate, you might want to avoid slurs and hyperbole.

Read all about your candidate:

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12391
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j092999.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12240
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2974
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8221
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10811
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/21/2007-04-21_moveon_firing_salvo_at_bombbomb_mccain.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller22.html
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7140
http://thenewamerican.com/node/6423

And note that most of these are right-wing sources.

Read all about your candidate:

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12391
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j092999.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12240
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2974
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8221
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10811
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/21/2007-04-21_moveon_firing_salvo_at_bombbomb_mccain.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/keller22.html
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7140
http://thenewamerican.com/node/6423

And note that most of these are right-wing sources.

Right - antiwar.com.

I know more than enough about John McCain - that wasn't the point. I'm not going to debate a slur. That was the point. I've been following the primaries as closely as anyone here; the existence of an editorial blowing garden variety anti-terrorist rhetoric out of proportion doesn't justify a slur.

Right - antiwar.com.

I know more than enough about John McCain - that wasn't the point. I'm not going to debate a slur. That was the point. I've been following the primaries as closely as anyone here; the existence of an editorial blowing garden variety anti-terrorist rhetoric out of proportion doesn't justify a slur.

You're really okay with having a man who said he would be fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years as President?

You're really okay with having a man who said he would be fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years as President?

Mind you, I am strongly anti-Republican, and I think that "100 years" quote was the dumbest thing a candidate has said since Kerry's infamous "I voted for it before I voted against it", but I will defend McCain a little here: what he actually said was that it would be OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years IF they weren't blowing each other up all the time. That is, if Iraq becomes peaceful and stable, and friendly inclined toward us, we can keep permanent bases there. I don't think the chances of Iraq turning peaceful soon are very good, and don't approve of shopping around for permanent bases, but it was not as stupid a thing to say as it has often been portrayed.

You're really okay with having a man who said he would be fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years as President?

It wasn't a brilliant thing to say - he should've known that it would be taken out of context and used against him. I have no problem with his saying that we're going to support the Iraqi government and keep our promises, which is what he was essentially saying (albeit in an excessively emphatic way) but he might've said it more tactfully, sure. The "100 years" was meant to contrast the difference between him and the Democratic nominees, who are promising withdrawal within a certain amount of time. "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq, it's if we succeed or not," was his point. (That's his quote).

Yeah, 'cause he's had so many fun experiences involving war, right? ;)

Ah, I do love scare tactics.

Yeah, he probably secretly loves torture as some kind of psychological disorder of his time in Vietnam;)

He's stated his policy would be to blindly follow the same path Bush has trodden the past 6 years regardless of whether that's correct or not.

He's stated that he wants to stay in Iraq on the basis that we're winning the war there, and that the surge is working - not the same as saying he'd stay in Iraq if it became a lost cause.

voters currently trust John McCain more than Barack Obama on issues of National Security, the War in Iraq, the Economy
wtf?!
people actually trust McCain on the economy. Even though he himself has admitted he hasn't the faintest goddamn clue about how it works? Yet people still trust him with it?
Let alone that people trust him with the Iraq war. He's stated his policy would be to blindly follow the same path Bush has trodden the past 6 years regardless of whether that's correct or not.

Thus, voters apparently trust someone who:
1. Hasn't a freaking clue
2. Is incapable of making decisions for himself

I have to say, those are not quite the top two reasons I use when deciding whether to trust someone or not.

Considering the race between Obama and Clinton is still on (while McCain has all but sealed his nomination), I wonder how much this has affected these results.