NationStates Jolt Archive

Ummmm no I did not, and if you read the article that I sourced, you would see the time frame.

"Ford closed the gap from 33 points to 2 in ten weeks. (Ford's convention came in the middle of that period, giving him an added boost.)"

so your claim is that it is possible for a guy who is already the president to narrow a significant gap against a political outsider from the height of that outsider's post-convention bump over the course of nearly three months? shocking!

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060808biv.gif

notice that except for the convention bounce, carter's numbers were actually relatively stable. and remember that for the entire summer, it was unclear if ford would actually get the nod - the convention came down to a floor fight between him and reagan. when ford's support came home and things followed their normal path of tightening as you got closer to the election, the result isn't really all that surprising.


also, don't you find it in the least bit sad that you continuously have to rely on articles from right-wing hack organizations at this point?

The Weekly Standard? Really?

You've become as desperate as the hard-right sources you've come to rely on. :(

seriously, he's hit just about every significant wingnut source out there. next stop, bircher rags.

A bit of comedy

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081009/POLITICS01/810090421/1409/METRO

Michigan Republicans are petitioning to bring Sarah Palin back to the state for a reprise campaign appearance and Democrats announced Wednesday they're bucking for the next best thing: Tina Fey.

Online petitions are available on the Michigan Democratic Party Web site to lure the popular "Saturday Night Live" comedian to the state. She has done a widely viewed sendup of Palin on the show the last three weeks.

"We'd be happy to welcome Tina Fey as a substitute to spread their message of more of the same policies that ship our jobs overseas and make health care unaffordable," state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said about the tongue-in-cheek effort.

The Democrats' effort is a slap at a petition circulated by Kent County Republicans to request John McCain's running mate make a return visit. U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Hills, sent a letter to Palin asking the Alaska governor to campaign with him in his district to help him beat back a challenge from Democrat Gary Peters.

Said state GOP spokesman Bill Nowling: "Tina Fey's great, but can she field dress a moose? I've seen Joe Biden on the campaign trail. If I were Democrats, I'd go for Tina Fey, too."

Palin recently said she'd like to stump in Michigan even though McCain is shifting limited resources to more winnable states.

There's no word on whether Palin or her counterpart will make a trip to Michigan.

And for anyone interested

http://michigandems.com/petition.php

McCain is giving a stump speech right now, hawking his BS economic plan of spending freezes he won't be able to implement and claiming that he's a regulator, etc., and of course lying outrageously about everything Obama has said in the past week and attributing all of the past 8 years of policies directly to Obama himself.

But he said one thing that really jumped out at me: He blamed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the current economic crisis. He said that they allowed our economy to go down. They did. All by themselves. WTF?

Also, he keeps saying "my friends" over and over, and I think I've figured it out. He's got his Roosevelts mixed up. Trying to appear presidential, he has talked about idolizing Teddy Roosevelt (and comparing himself to Teddy), but it was Franklin Roosevelt who was famous for addressing the American public as "my friends" in his radio addresses. FDR, the most hated dead president among Republicans.

mccain really doesnt have a clue about economics. its shocking how stupid he is on the subject.

And now he'd telling that fairy tale about Mother Theresa handing Cindy a baby straight from heaven. He's talking about his "pro-life" stance that he is so proud of having had his entire political life -- forget about all the times he spoke in favor of a woman's right to choose. Nope that never happened. As of now he has always believed the unborn have a right to life and that the Declaration of Independence was extending the right to life to the unborn. I'm not kidding. And he wants to make sure the government "helps" young pregnant women by letting them give up their unwanted babies for adoption, as if that (a) is not a suck-ass idea and (b) addresses the issue at all.

And now he is actually characterizing Obama's (to my view quite conservative) stance on abortion as a "radical left pro-abortion" view. Those are McCain's words. Geez, bitch, pander much?

And Palin (I think it was; I'm listening, not watching; it might have been that lying ***** Cindy) jumps in and launches some accusation that Obama opposed giving health care to infants who were "born alive as a result of a botched abortion." Her words. What the fuck are these people smoking?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx


For God's sake McCain, just concede. Youre going to lose.


NOW the writing is on the wall.

ps- I think we all should spam the canadian leaders thread and talk epic smack about whoever CH is supporting, and make a bunch of nonsensical and BS claims that are unsupportable. Much like he has been doing here since....last November?

PPS: Don't.

And now he'd telling that fairy tale about Mother Theresa handing Cindy a baby straight from heaven. He's talking about his "pro-life" stance that he is so proud of having had his entire political life -- forget about all the times he spoke in favor of a woman's right to choose. Nope that never happened. As of now he has always believed the unborn have a right to life and that the Declaration of Independence was extending the right to life to the unborn. I'm not kidding. And he wants to make sure the government "helps" young pregnant women by letting them give up their unwanted babies for adoption, as if that (a) is not a suck-ass idea and (b) addresses the issue at all.

And now he is actually characterizing Obama's (to my view quite conservative) stance on abortion as a "radical left pro-abortion" view. Those are McCain's words. Geez, bitch, pander much?

And Palin (I think it was; I'm listening, not watching; it might have been that lying ***** Cindy) jumps in and launches some accusation that Obama opposed giving health care to infants who were "born alive as a result of a botched abortion." Her words. What the fuck are these people smoking?
good thing they are only preaching to the choir. the undecided voters cant give less of a fuck about anything that is not going to fix the economy.

It's Palin talking with McCain.

Now she and McCain are calling Obama a liar, claiming that he refuses to answer some undefined questions and when he does, he isn't honest. They're blaming the "mainstream media" for this, saying they don't ask the right questions. Apparently, Obama doesn't answer questions nobody asks him. That radical left pro-abortion lying bastard. And Bible Spice is trying to spin something out of some claim that, in talking publicly about the current wars, Obama hasn't used the word "victory." You know, I'll bet he's never used the word "cauliflower" while taking about the wars, either. What can we make of that, eh? Eh?

It's Palin talking with McCain.

Now she and McCain are calling Obama a liar, claiming that he refuses to answer some undefined questions and when he does, he isn't honest. They're blaming the "mainstream media" for this, saying they don't ask the right questions. Apparently, Obama doesn't answer questions nobody asks him. That radical left pro-abortion lying bastard. And Bible Spice is trying to spin something out of some claim that, in talking publicly about the current wars, Obama hasn't used the word "victory." You know, I'll bet he's never used the word "cauliflower" while taking about the wars, either. What can we make of that, eh? Eh?

I thrive off their desperation. Its like sweet, sweet wine.

It's Palin talking with McCain.

Now she and McCain are calling Obama a liar, claiming that he refuses to answer some undefined questions and when he does, he isn't honest. They're blaming the "mainstream media" for this, saying they don't ask the right questions. Apparently, Obama doesn't answer questions nobody asks him. That radical left pro-abortion lying bastard. And Bible Spice is trying to spin something out of some claim that, in talking publicly about the current wars, Obama hasn't used the word "victory." You know, I'll bet he's never used the word "cauliflower" while taking about the wars, either. What can we make of that, eh? Eh?
yeah i was watching that. its so .... wrong. its as if they are living in some kind of alternate dimension where obama hasnt been campaigning for 2 years.

You know, I'll bet he's never used the word "cauliflower" while taking about the wars, either. What can we make of that, eh? Eh?

Uhm... That he's sane?

I thrive off their desperation. Its like sweet, sweet wine.
It truly is. Keep it coming, guys. :D I'd say they started out about 50/50 policies versus attacks on Obama, but they are gradually forgetting about policy talk altogether. Meanwhile, MSNBC keeps cutting back to Andrea Mitchell and pundits, and the Dem pundits are just lapping it up, while the Rep pundits frantically keep talking about Ayers, and Andrea Mitchell keeps factchecking them in that quietly plonking way of hers.

yeah i was watching that. its so .... wrong. its as if they are living in some kind of alternate dimension where obama hasnt been campaigning for 2 years.
That's because in this reality, where he has been campaigning, they are losing.

allegations of voter registration fraud (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174)

allegations of voter registration fraud (http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174)

Republicans are crying about someone stealing an election?



Oh my God this is epic.


Normally this would piss me off, but this year has restored my faith in the American people. They seem to be capable of actually voting on issues and seeing through BS.

On top of that, they are shunning slander and actually caring about the truth.


EDIT: I love the logic...IF THAT ****** IS WINNING HE MUST BE CHEATIN'!

Republicans are crying about someone stealing an election?



Oh my God this is epic.


Normally this would piss me off, but this year has restored my faith in the American people. They seem to be capable of actually voting on issues and seeing through BS.

On top of that, they are shunning slander and actually caring about the truth.


EDIT: I love the logic...IF THAT ****** IS WINNING HE MUST BE CHEATIN'!
Well, if anybody are the experts on stealing elections, it would be the republicans. :rolleyes:

Seriously, this getting comedic.

EDIT: I can't take any more of this crap. I'm going out for some air.

Well, if anybody are the experts on stealing elections, it would be the republicans. :rolleyes:

Seriously, this getting comedic.

Im now looking for the article I read earlier today were Nevada officals said that even if it was true, it wouldnt change the outcome of any election, general included.

This was posted by Gift-of-God on another forum

ACORN officials said they were stunned by the search because they had unilaterally identified and flagged suspicious voter registration cards to the county elections board starting in July and had been cooperating with authorities to cull bad information and fire workers who collected that information, said Brian Mellor, senior counsel for Project Vote.

Project Vote relies on staff from ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, to do field level voter drives.

ACORN's internal checks, Mellor said, included tracking forms assigned to canvassers using serial numbers and worker sign-offs on each form and following up with listed voters by phone to verify they had taken part in the registration drive. The search warrant mentions those procedures.

That cooperation and meetings with state officials also are mentioned in the search affidavit, as is a subpoena from the state that was delivered to ACORN in September asking the group to resubmit information on several employees it had previously turned over to county elections officials. The forms were resubmitted, Mellor said.

"The raid was a stunt designed perhaps to make them look tough on voter fraud," said Matthew Henderson, the southwest regional director for ACORN. "We don't think fraud is a rampant problem. This was a politically motivated stunt, that is all there is to it because those new voters can reshape the electorate of Nevada."

Henderson said many voters registered through ACORN are "working people and people of color and there may be corners of the political world where a high injection of new voters like those is unsettling some."

The state is one of several viewed as a battleground.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...ces_raided.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/07/acorn_nevada_offices_raided.html)

This was posted by Gift-of-God on another forum



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...ces_raided.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/07/acorn_nevada_offices_raided.html)


Exactly.

Like I said, this is just the right wing shitting themselves. Its obvious to everyone with eyes.

the republicans have been harping on this voter fraud thing for more than 4 years. they are CERTAIN that illegal aliens are registering to vote.

there was a commision to study this and they came up with zero incidents and no evidence that it is in any way a problem.

there IS voting fraud of course but its not this kind.

so my new worry is that when mccain loses, the republicans will respond by doubling down on the crazy - conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed! this is, obviously, less than optimal, especially at this historical moment.

the authoritarian followers that make up the bulk of the party's supporters need the authoritarian leadership; they are lost without it. so i am less concerned about them directly, though we obviously always need to be watching them. but i really want their leaders turning the knives on each other. basically, i think we need more than just republican losses, but a massacre to break them and cause the party itself to fall into disarray. or do you guys think that not even that would work?

so my new worry is that when mccain loses, the republicans will respond by doubling down on the crazy - conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed! this is, obviously, less than optimal, especially at this historical moment.

the authoritarian followers that make up the bulk of the party's supporters need the authoritarian leadership; they are lost without it. so i am less concerned about them directly, though we obviously always need to be watching them. but i really want their leaders turning the knives on each other. basically, i think we need more than just republican losses, but a massacre to break them and cause the party itself to fall into disarray. or do you guys think that not even that would work?

In all honosty, despite my numerous problems with right wing thought and leadership, I dont relish the thought of seeing (most) of them murdered.

the authoritarian followers that make up the bulk of the party's supporters need the authoritarian leadership ...

I don't think those authoritarians make up the bulk of the supporters. I think they're just the noisy ones. The way I see it, the bulk of Republicans are actually more moderate than the current ticket - they're just scared of ol' leftist Barack, so they back former apparent Centrist McCain and company.

I was speculating that elevating Sarah Palin into a potential front-runner for 2012 might actually be good for the Republican Party. I think her impulsive folksiness and attack-dog mentality may be just the necessary catalyst to finally split the Party into its evangelical and centrist components. The new Centrists would attract a lot of center-leaning and Blue Dog Democrats, possibly creating the first viable third party in years.

A Centrist third party would be good for Americans. Let the Evangelical Republicans press their agenda with their 12% 'majority', and let those of us with more centered opinions get on with actually running the country.

the republicans have been harping on this voter fraud thing for more than 4 years. they are CERTAIN that illegal aliens are registering to vote.

there was a commision to study this and they came up with zero incidents and no evidence that it is in any way a problem.

there IS voting fraud of course but its not this kind.

During the 2004 elections I lived about 2 miles from the Canadian border and knew several people who were absolutely convinced that Canadians were coming over to vote in the election. Oddly enough, the people who were convinced of such silliness were Republicans...

During the 2004 elections I lived about 2 miles from the Canadian border and knew several people who were absolutely convinced that Canadians were coming over to vote in the election. Oddly enough, the people who were convinced of such silliness were Republicans...
they really have a bug up their asses about it.

they really have a bug up their asses about it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CQH4TMD6L.jpg

I don't think those authoritarians make up the bulk of the supporters. I think they're just the noisy ones.

i think we can use ongoing support for bush as a reasonable stand-in here - nobody but the most delusional follower of dear leader can still like that guy. and in that measure, he's all the way down to 55% among republicans, having lost some more of them by being so wishy-washy and unheroic of late, and thus not conforming to their desired template for supreme ruler as well any more. even if we allow a bit of float for some authoritarian followers he's lost recently and the not-so-authoritarian people who are just too ignorant or stupid to give real answers, they clearly form the largest block of the party.

split the Party into its evangelical and centrist components.

i'd like to see it. hence the desire for the knives to come out amongst the movement leaders. but i think they need to be truly broken, with no hope of having their current power-chasing coalition work out for them again. these guys seem to put up with anything as long as they can enact some portion of their agenda - even if just in obstructionism and pissing off the other side.

Anyone see Michelle Obama on Larry King, or Jon Stewart?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/obama.excerpts/index.html?section=cnn_latest

It's a weird dynamic, in this election, and it's no surprise that McCain is having such a hard time fighting it: The Democrats have Barack Obama as a charismatic frontrunner, backed by a seasoned 'salt-of-the-earth' type VP pick, and Michelle Obama (also, apparently, extraordinarily charismatic) seems to be taking on the Democratic version of the 'Palin effect' to some extent. And then you've got Hillary who is playing a very low key role almost behind the scenes (who would have thought it...), and who seems to have been the best preparation the campaign could have had for the 'gloves off' stage we're entering.

It's got to be like arm-wrestling an octopus - no matter where McCain looks, he just can't get a break.

Anyone see Michelle Obama on Larry King, or Jon Stewart?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/obama.excerpts/index.html?section=cnn_latest

It's a weird dynamic, in this election, and it's no surprise that McCain is having such a hard time fighting it: The Democrats have Barack Obama as a charismatic frontrunner, backed by a seasoned 'salt-of-the-earth' type VP pick, and Michelle Obama (also, apparently, extraordinarily charismatic) seems to be taking on the Democratic version of the 'Palin effect' to some extent. And then you've got Hillary who is playing a very low key role almost behind the scenes (who would have thought it...), and who seems to have been the best preparation the campaign could have had for the 'gloves off' stage we're entering.

It's got to be like arm-wrestling an octopus - no matter where McCain looks, he just can't get a break.

I think Obama's campaign has been one of the most brilliant run ones I have ever seen.

Also, for what it's worth, I said earlier that I wouldn't be surprised if CNN had Obama past 270 EVs by the end of the week. Well, while CNN hasn't shifted from their 264 projection, realclearpolitics.com has shifted Virginia from toss up to lean Obama, giving him now a projected 277.

Also, for what it's worth, I said earlier that I wouldn't be surprised if CNN had Obama past 270 EVs by the end of the week. Well, while CNN hasn't shifted from their 264 projection, realclearpolitics.com has shifted Virginia from toss up to lean Obama, giving him now a projected 277.

an interesting fact i just saw pointed out on openleft - the big media guys are all using maps with obama under 270.
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) 264-174
msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_map) 264-174
nyt (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html) 260-200
shit, even the washington post can't admit what it's map actually shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/) and calls it 168-174

but when you look to the new media websites we see something else entirely:
e-v 349-174
pollster 320-158
rcp 277-158 / 353-185
fivethirtyeight 347.6-190.4

an interesting fact i just saw pointed out on openleft - the big media guys are all using maps with obama under 270.
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) 264-174
msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_map) 264-174
nyt (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html) 260-200
shit, even the washington post can't admit what it's map actually shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/) and calls it 168-174



Ebil Libruhl Media indeed.

but when you look to the new media websites we see something else entirely:
e-v 349-174
pollster 320-158
rcp 277-158
fivethirtyeight 347.6-190.4

The problem with those is, as I have said, especially true with E-V and fivethirtyeight is that they count ANY state where Obama leads BY ANY AMOUNT and for ANY amount of time as leaning Obama. You shouldn't count a state where the lead is less than the margin of error, especially as a new development.

RCP has been as conservative as CNN with its predictions, but they have recently moved Virgina to the "lean Obama" column. Even CNN right now has an article about how Obama could take Virginia. After the pounding the mainstream media, especially CNN, took after calling the election for Gore in 2000, they're being EXTREMELY conservative and won't push either candidate into 270+ range until the writing is clearly on the wall.

I stand by my prediction that will be the case early next week. My guess is Tuesday.

obama has bought half hour time slots on cbs and nbc on october 29th.

in prime time.

damn that man has raised serious cash!

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html

obama has bought half hour time slots on cbs and nbc on october 29th.

in prime time.

damn that man has raised serious cash!

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html

That was my first thought exactly.

Damn that man has money to blow.

In all honosty, despite my numerous problems with right wing thought and leadership, I dont relish the thought of seeing (most) of them murdered.
I read "massacre" as in "massive landslide victory for Obama with almost no one voting republican."

And I do think that would help to break the rightwing bloc in the US right now -- their so-called coalition. Of course it would have no effect on the views of the various parts of the coalition -- neocons, fiscal conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and authoritarian wackos -- it would just stop them paying attention to each other, no doubt each group blaming another for the failure of their agenda.

I read "massacre" as in "massive landslide victory for Obama with almost no one voting republican."

And I do think that would help to break the rightwing bloc in the US right now -- their so-called coalition. Of course it would have no effect on the views of the various parts of the coalition -- neocons, fiscal conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and authoritarian wackos -- it would just stop them paying attention to each other, no doubt each group blaming another for the failure of their agenda.

Oh. Well, I fully support infighting that will destroy their party.

The problem with those is, as I have said, especially true with E-V and fivethirtyeight is that they count ANY state where Obama leads BY ANY AMOUNT and for ANY amount of time as leaning Obama. You shouldn't count a state where the lead is less than the margin of error, especially as a new development.

538 does no such thing. they assign fractions of electoral votes on the basis of wins in the simulation. if they just assigned them based on who is leading right now, it would be 375-163.

as for rcp, it appears to be less vested in the horse-race than the big media, but, well, http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html

obama has bought half hour time slots on cbs and nbc on october 29th.

in prime time.

damn that man has raised serious cash!

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html
Dammit, that kind of money shows some major frikkin' support. I'd heard he had broken some records with fundraising.

So...October 29th. *marks calendar* I wonder if there will be dancers and trained housecats.

Dammit, that kind of money shows some major frikkin' support. I'd heard he had broken some records with fundraising.

So...October 29th. *marks calendar* I wonder if there will be dancers and trained housecats.
he already has an entire channel on the dish satellite tv network.

i have no idea how much that costs (or why he thinks that anyone would watch it)

Dammit, that kind of money shows some major frikkin' support. I'd heard he had broken some records with fundraising.

So...October 29th. *marks calendar* I wonder if there will be dancers and trained housecats.

Yeah, apparently this is what Hillary has been doing for the campaign, and what has kept her (unusually) below the radar.

I wonder if Obama's new strategy is simply to bankrupt the Republicans before November 4th....

That was my first thought exactly.

Damn that man has money to blow.

My favorite part of that article?

"This is another indication, if there needs to be any more, that Barack Obama's got more money than [available] television time to buy," said Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va.

He has literally more money than he can spend.

YI wonder if Obama's new strategy is simply to bankrupt the Republicans before November 4th....

I heard a story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95531831) this morning that that's precisely what he's doing ... in a sense:

In 2004, President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry didn't spend a penny on TV advertising in Indiana. No one doubted that the state would go Republican. But right now, Indiana is barely tilting toward Sen. John McCain. Obama is outspending McCain on television there by a margin of 20-to-1.

Numbers like those, in Indiana and some other once-solid Republican states, seem to confirm Obama's judgment in rejecting public financing. The decision cost the Illinois senator an $84 million grant from the government, meaning he has to keep on raising money. But if he had taken the money — as McCain did — he could not spend anything beyond that. Instead, with a fundraising network that set records throughout the primaries, Obama's financial picture easily eclipses McCain's.

With public financing, McCain has to stretch his $84 million from early September through Election Day.

From now through early November, Obama might exceed that amount, just in television buys. That's the calculation of Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks TV spending.

"It's a strategic win for the Democrats, anytime you have to tie a Republican down in states like North Carolina and states like Indiana," Tracey said. "I think McCain probably felt like they would be out of Missouri by now, and Obama would be out of Missouri, and that just hasn't been the case."

Instead, both campaigns are pouring dollars into Missouri: $5.2 million for TV from Obama and the Democratic National Committee; $4.7 million for TV from McCain and the Republican National Committee. McCain has 16 field offices, while Obama has 41.

The problem with those is, as I have said, especially true with E-V and fivethirtyeight is that they count ANY state where Obama leads BY ANY AMOUNT and for ANY amount of time as leaning Obama. You shouldn't count a state where the lead is less than the margin of error, especially as a new development.

??? Haven't you ever even visited either site?
electoral-vote.com has three levels, "strong Dem/Rep" if Obama's (McCain's) lead is 10% or more, "weak" if the lead is 5-10, and "barely" for under 5 (within margins of error). The counts are broken down so that you can do the addition by whichever standard you like.
fivethirtyeight.com displays a continuum of shades from deep red to pink to white to pale blue to deep blue, so states within the margin of error are whitish and you need to squint to see whether it is ever so slightly bluish or pinkish. It does not "count" states all in or all out, rather runs 1000 randomized trials (assigning hypothetical voters within each state a probability of voting O or M by a mixture of the poll results, and picking random numbers then to see what hypothetical votes come out), and his electoral vote total (to one decimal place past integer) is an average.

I heard a story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95531831) this morning that that's precisely what he's doing ... in a sense:

It also makes me think of something...

Looking at the current economic climate - as it has been for the last few years, and especially as it is in the last few weeks - the idea that the Obama machine is/has been breaking records for fundraising is as good a sign as I can imagine that a lot of people are heavily vested in some change.

And that's got to mean that a lot of people are really unhappy about what the Republicans have offered and have to offer.

No wonder McCain can get away with pulling madcap japes - his party figures 'what have we got to lose'?

an interesting fact i just saw pointed out on openleft - the big media guys are all using maps with obama under 270.
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) 264-174
msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_map) 264-174
nyt (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html) 260-200
shit, even the washington post can't admit what it's map actually shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/) and calls it 168-174

but when you look to the new media websites we see something else entirely:
e-v 349-174
pollster 320-158
rcp 277-158 / 353-185
fivethirtyeight 347.6-190.4

What's openleft?

What's openleft?

http://www.openleft.com/

one of the big blogs of the progressive netroots

http://www.openleft.com/

one of the big blogs of the progressive netroots

Thanks.

??? Haven't you ever even visited either site?
electoral-vote.com has three levels, "strong Dem/Rep" if Obama's (McCain's) lead is 10% or more, "weak" if the lead is 5-10, and "barely" for under 5 (within margins of error). The counts are broken down so that you can do the addition by whichever standard you like.
fivethirtyeight.com displays a continuum of shades from deep red to pink to white to pale blue to deep blue, so states within the margin of error are whitish and you need to squint to see whether it is ever so slightly bluish or pinkish. It does not "count" states all in or all out, rather runs 1000 randomized trials (assigning hypothetical voters within each state a probability of voting O or M by a mixture of the poll results, and picking random numbers then to see what hypothetical votes come out), and his electoral vote total (to one decimal place past integer) is an average.

all correct, except it's 10k trials.

an interesting fact i just saw pointed out on openleft - the big media guys are all using maps with obama under 270.
cnn (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) 264-174
msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_map) 264-174
nyt (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html) 260-200
shit, even the washington post can't admit what it's map actually shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/) and calls it 168-174
Even more telling is clicking on the Blue states on the Washington Post's electoral vote map. Nearly every single one of them has an explanation as to why it's 'leaning' towards Obama, and maybe 1/2 carry warnings why the Democrats can't rely on winning that particular state. Some are still marked as 'Battleground' states, even though Obama is leading by comfortable margins (eg. IOWA has him with a 9.5% lead, NH has him at 10.4%).
Click on a red state, though, and it just says 'leaning Republican'. Nothing else.
Speaks volumes that does.

This story made me smile:

"'Rednecks for Obama' want to bridge yawning culture gap"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081009/pl_afp/usvoteobamarednecks;_ylt=AmsvBvG.RUaXYKLSslY2TzgDW7oF

I heard a story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95531831) this morning that that's precisely what he's doing ... in a sense:
Obama has a chance to take a solid Red state and is working hard to do so?
But..but..but...Obama's 50 state strategy ain't working! CH told me so himself!

This story made me smile:

"'Rednecks for Obama' want to bridge yawning culture gap"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081009/pl_afp/usvoteobamarednecks;_ylt=AmsvBvG.RUaXYKLSslY2TzgDW7oF

I liked it too. These guys have STYLE. ;)

Three of the best cartoons that sum up 3 of the more important issues this election:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/td/2008/td081004.gif

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/td/2008/td080920.gif

And this one just for CH:

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/td/2008/td080913.gif

Well, if anybody are the experts on stealing elections, it would be the republicans. :rolleyes:

Seriously, this getting comedic.

EDIT: I can't take any more of this crap. I'm going out for some air.

Uh...wasn't John F Kennedy running for the Democrats? Wasn't Tamminiy Hall running the Democrats?

I'm not so sure about your logic here.

Even more telling is clicking on the Blue states on the Washington Post's electoral vote map. Nearly every single one of them has an explanation as to why it's 'leaning' towards Obama, and maybe 1/2 carry warnings why the Democrats can't rely on winning that particular state. Some are still marked as 'Battleground' states, even though Obama is leading by comfortable margins (eg. IOWA has him with a 9.5% lead, NH has him at 10.4%).
Click on a red state, though, and it just says 'leaning Republican'. Nothing else.
Speaks volumes that does.

The Washington Post's map is a complete farce. Totally dishonest.

Well, it's finally settled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

The McCain campaign released a report clearing Palin of any wrongdoing. Move along, kids, nothing to see here.

Well, it's finally settled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

The McCain campaign released a report clearing Palin of any wrongdoing. Move along, kids, nothing to see here.

Looks like Stephen Colbert was right...

Former Oklahoma governor and McCain supporter with a very unfortunate last name, Frank Keating, has raised concerns about Obama's past drug use.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/09/mccain-surrogate-raises-obamas-past-drug-use/

Well, it's finally settled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

The McCain campaign released a report clearing Palin of any wrongdoing. Move along, kids, nothing to see here.
whoa they must be sure that the report is going to be bad news for palin.

Three of the best cartoons that sum up 3 of the more important issues this election:

Tom the Dancing Bug is superb. A lot of liberal cartoons are so over the top and screeching they make me want to lower taxes and deny civil rights for gays. (I'm looking at you, Tom Tomorrow.) The Dancing Bug always manages to be funny without being self-righteous.

you know, i kinda like the guy that the lunatic hacks at national review's 'the corner' think obama is (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015094.php)


Obama's radicalism, beginning with his Alinski/ACORN/community organizer period, is a bottom-up socialism. This, I'd suggest, is why he fits comfortably with Ayers, who (especially now) is more Maoist than Stalinist. What Obama is about is infiltrating (and training others to infiltrate) bourgeois institutions in order to change them from within — in essence, using the system to supplant the system. A key requirement of this stealthy approach (very consistent with talking vaporously about "change" but never getting more specific than absolutely necessary) is electability. With an enormous assist from the media, which does not press him for specifics, Obama has walked this line brilliantly. Absent convincing retractions of his prior radical positions, though, we should construe shrewd moves like the ostensibly reasonable Second Amendment position as efforts make him electable.

This is why Ayers is so important: it is a peek behind the curtain of Obama's rhetoric.

The stock market continued to free fall, which of course means that McCain is worried about Obama's neighbors again. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081010/ts_nm/us_usa_politics_68;_ylt=AitsIkcNKSYAYuOii0qfYuph24cA)

And this time it's McCain himself.

you know, i kinda like the guy that the lunatic hacks at national review's 'the corner' think obama is (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015094.php)

Can I have some of what he's smoking? It must be some primo shit.

Can I have some of what he's smoking? It must be some primo shit.

even better, he gets paid to smoke it. i really need to get me some off of the right-wing hack gravy train.

even better, he gets paid to smoke it. i really need to get me some off of the right-wing hack gravy train.

Look on the bright side: If there are actual morons who think like that, the next 4 years will be hellish fear to them! They'll SUFFER! :)

Former Oklahoma governor and McCain supporter with a very unfortunate last name, Frank Keating, has raised concerns about Obama's past drug use.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/09/mccain-surrogate-raises-obamas-past-drug-use/

Because a history of drug use is bad.

Curiously, Frank appears to have overlooked Sarah Palin's drug use, though. I'm sure he'll rush to rectify it just as soon as he notices.

Tom the Dancing Bug is superb. A lot of liberal cartoons are so over the top and screeching they make me want to lower taxes and deny civil rights for gays. (I'm looking at you, Tom Tomorrow.) The Dancing Bug always manages to be funny without being self-righteous.
It's one of my favourite cartoons, esp now that Calvin&Hobbes and Far Side have finished. Reuben Bollings has been consistantly funny for over a decade now and, as you say, without being self-righteous. I love his 'Education of Louis' series. Strikes very close to home.

you know, i kinda like the guy that the lunatic hacks at national review's 'the corner' think obama is (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015094.php)

What I love about these accusations and those of McCain, they are prefaced on the fact that no evidence is evidence. If you examine his past and nothing turns up, it's because he's lying and hiding. They design it so you positively expect not to find evidence. They might as well accuse him of running the Matrix.

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?
It's "President-Elect" not "King," silly.

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...
No. No it won't. You know as well as I do that most small businesses do not make $250,000 or over. You can stop repeating the debunked McCain line now, please.

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

Yay, a stupid tax reform plan! That'll really help.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

No, the only people who win are the super rich, and even they lose in the end.

Real tax reform will come from wiping the slate clean and rewriting the whole tax code to be far more logical, sensible, and with far less loopholes in it for big businesses.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.
Right.

My opinion: Nyet. At this point, in order for McCain to win, Obama has to make some kind of serious mistake, like being a paedophilic zombie who smokes crack and stabs himself with pencils at night during the full moon or something like that.

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.

So you're suggesting Johnny-the-POW, who got into his situation in a big part by gambling (cf. Palin, Sarah)... gambles again? And talks about the economy, of all things?

Heh. Fine by me, I don't want another Republican setting paw in the White House.

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.


At this point, not a damn thing McCain can do. Nothing, he hasn't a prayer.

At this point, not a damn thing McCain can do. Nothing, he hasn't a prayer.

Now, now: Bin Laden may still release a video against McCain to manipulate the Americans into voting for McCain, as he did for Bush...

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.
its too late.

he is far past his quota of "hail mary passes"

it would be seen as a stupid gimmick

what he has to do is clear the cobwebs out of his head and start LEADING for the last 3 weeks. be the strong steady hand that he is supposed to be instead of the desperate fool switching from tactic to tactic.

its probably too late....

anyone got a photo of obama blowing a goat that he could lend to mccain for a month?

Now, now: Bin Laden may still release a video against McCain to manipulate the Americans into voting for McCain, as he did for Bush...

By Bin Ladin you mean that puppet they have?

Now, now: Bin Laden may still release a video against McCain to manipulate the Americans into voting for McCain, as he did for Bush...
surely karl rove has the connections to make one of those himself....

anyone got a photo of obama blowing a goat that he could lend to mccain for a month?

If I had one, the love of a goddess would not be enough for me to lend it to that son of a bitch. ;)

By Bin Ladin you mean that puppet they have?

Please. That's a rather ridiculous assertion.

Please. That's a rather ridiculous assertion.

True, it's probably motion capture with CGI.

True, it's probably motion capture with CGI.

He's a Llama.
http://www.bluecrabboulevard.com/wp-admin/Gaius_Photos/bin%20Llama.jpg

Osama Bin Llama. *nod*

its too late.
...[deleted]
its probably too late....

anyone got a photo of obama blowing a goat that he could lend to mccain for a month?
Ah yes, dead women and live boys. The stuff politics is really made from.

If I had one, the love of a goddess would not be enough for me to lend it to that son of a bitch. ;)

So is it personal with you and McCain? Or just a general hatred of Republicans?

True, it's probably motion capture with CGI.

I doubt that as well. I'm more willing to believe that Osama Bin Laden intentionally did the video himself for his own personal reasons more than it was faked.

Why? Because Bin Laden wasn't captured or killed, and he's not a stupid man by any means. He knew where the Iraq war was going, and knew it was his best chance to revamp Al-Queda, and that keeping Bush in power was the best way to keep it going. He also fully understands how the American public reacts, so he puts out his video.

Bush simply received good circumstances.

So is it personal with you and McCain? Or just a general hatred of Republicans?

How did you draw THAT from "I'd not give him a picture of Obama blowing a goat"?

But, to answer you, I've learned in these past 8 years that Republicans are dangerous in power, and I know McCain has a nasty temper.

If I had one, the love of a goddess would not be enough for me to lend it to that son of a bitch. ;)

Ah yes, dead women and live boys. The stuff politics is really made from.

in truth, it probably still wouldnt be enough. nothing sticks to obama.

he would explain that goat-blowing is an ancient cultural tradition of kenya that he only tried once when he was on that trip to his father's homeland

we'd all understand.

in truth, it probably still wouldnt be enough. nothing sticks to obama.

he would explain that goat-blowing is an ancient cultural tradition of kenya that he only tried once when he was on that trip to his father's homeland

we'd all understand.

If it keeps Republicans out of power, fine by me.

If I had one, the love of a goddess would not be enough for me to lend it to that son of a bitch. ;)

How did you draw THAT from "I'd not give him a picture of Obama blowing a goat"?

But, to answer you, I've learned in these past 8 years that Republicans are dangerous in power, and I know McCain has a nasty temper.
When I read these two in conjunction... And after reading a few other posts with equal or greater expletives...

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.

This is it. Tax reform resonates with everyone but the economic elitists and the economic dregs. But the FairTax even rewards the dregs for not earning... Almost everyone wins.

I don't want to debate the FairTax, but if you want to do that, start another thread. I want to get opinions about whether or not this would be enough of a difference to make people consider voting for McCain, as opposed to voting for undecided or for Obama.

What McCain SHOULD be doing, if he had an ounce of sense, is damage limitation.

For all his talk of reaching across the aisle, the Republican campaign is being seen - even by OTHER Republicans - as the most savagely partisan... maybe ever. All the dirty work is polarising Independents and - while it MAY be bringing some to the Republicans - it seems to be driving far more people the other way.

Which means - if Obama wins the election - which it looks like he's going to - the Republicans are going to be fucked. People won't believe 'non-partisan'. Not that it will matter, because these last few weeks are going to determine how BADLY the Republicans lose.

Would it be better to run a clean campaign and lose by a percentage point... or a dirty campaign and lose by ten?

When I read these two in conjunction... And after reading a few other posts with equal or greater expletives...

Oh, greater than that "terrorist" buzzword McCain et al are attacking Obama with?

Or also greater than "anti-American", which both Obama and I and, well, liberals and clear-minded people in general have been attacked with for the last 6 years?

Trust me, if I knew I could do it with impunity, "son of a bitch" would sound like a compliment to McCain by the time I was done.

What I love about these accusations and those of McCain, they are prefaced on the fact that no evidence is evidence. If you examine his past and nothing turns up, it's because he's lying and hiding. They design it so you positively expect not to find evidence. They might as well accuse him of running the Matrix.

obama's deep-cover maoist infiltration of our precious bodily fluids is incredibly well planned. it actually started before he was born in a village in kenya - how else would his mother and his alleged 'step-father' (ha!) be able to immediately fly him from kenya to hawaii and coerce the state to issue a fake 'certificate of live birth'. this is a long game, folks. thankfully, the sharp minds of the conservative movement are too clever by half to fall for it. they - and only they - can see right through the decades of lies and all-too-perfect cover stories.

obama, i'm on to you!!!!

Uh...wasn't John F Kennedy running for the Democrats? Wasn't Tamminiy Hall running the Democrats?

I'm not so sure about your logic here.
Then you have not been paying attention to current events. Yesterday's news is still more compelling than news from 30 - 100 years ago.

As for your cryptic Kennedy reference, I neither know nor care what you are referring to. Dirt on JFK doesn't give so much cynic-cred when you try to skim over the 2000 and 2004 election controversies. Hey! You know who else ran crooked elections? The ROMANS! Yeah, what the fuck am I tallking about the Republicans for after the ROMANS? Geez, I should get with the program.

Oh, and it is spelled "Tammany Hall". It was an actual building. And they didn't steal elections, they rigged them. Functional difference.

Don't forget the Canadian general elections too!

you know, i kinda like the guy that the lunatic hacks at national review's 'the corner' think obama is (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015094.php)
Me too. :D That description clinches my vote for Obama. (It already was clinched, but you know what I mean.)

I know that we already know this, but it doesn't seem like a great idea for Palin to get into a nutty friend off... (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/)

"'Rednecks for Obama' want to bridge yawning culture gap"
A new poll in West Virginia shows Obama leading (!) there. Too early to tell if that's a real trend (it's from ARG, a somewhat erratic poll that 538 has criticized often; on the other hand, nobody else has polled WV in weeks), but it is on the heels of a key endorsement from Dr. Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain Boys (a beloved bluegrass band). One comment from a hillbilly redneck made me sit up and take notice: "I'm voting for the n****r, he's plenty smart. And I don't like that rich coot, don't even know how many houses he got." Class resentment trumps racial bigotry? The times, they are a-changin.

What could McCain do, in the few remaining days before the Obama coronation, that would turn the election around?

Name calling isn't going to do it. Neither is pointing out flaws in Obama's policy. The electorate just isn't educated enough to understand trivial things like the fact that raising income taxes on those that make more than $250K will kill small business. No, he needs to do something desperate and dramatic...

:rolleyes:


Remember how much attention Huckabee got from endorsing the FairTax? I think that the one, dramatic thing McCain could do, at this late date, is to call for the abolition of the IRS and it's replacement by a consumption tax.


A Republican Politician already tried the whole "abolish the IRS" gambit. His name was Ron Paul. And it won him the nomina-oh wait no it didnt do jack shit for him.

I know that we already know this, but it doesn't seem like a great idea for Palin to get into a nutty friend off... (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/)


muwahahahahah!

A new poll in West Virginia shows Obama leading (!) there. Too early to tell if that's a real trend (it's from ARG, a somewhat erratic poll that 538 has criticized often; on the other hand, nobody else has polled WV in weeks), but it is on the heels of a key endorsement from Dr. Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain Boys (a beloved bluegrass band). One comment from a hillbilly redneck made me sit up and take notice: "I'm voting for the n****r, he's plenty smart. And I don't like that rich coot, don't even know how many houses he got." Class resentment trumps racial bigotry? The times, they are a-changin.


:o :eek2::eek2:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/mccains_chilling_dance_with_th.html

This essentially sums up how I feel about the McCain campaign. Its shameful and disgusting enough for even Karl Rove to vomit a bit in his mouth.

McCain deserves a brutal, humiliating defeat, Palin deserves to be chased out of politics, and they both deserve to be pariahs for the rest of their natural lives. It sickens me that this rhetoric is still acceptable in the country that claims to be a bastion of freedom, diginity, and honor. What kind of a "shining city on a hill" are we, Mr. McCain, if this is still an acceptable way to get to the highest office in the land?

And people say racisms dead.

The comments are hilarious, especially the one that basically says "Democrats are the real racists because".

The comments are hilarious, especially the one that basically says "Democrats are the real racists because".

I didnt read the comments because I was sure theyd be made by idiots.

I am voting for McCain. Why? I absolutely hate what the Neo-Cons and religious right have done to the Republican party, and I hate the tax-and-spend policies of the left.

Obama wants to take our guns away. (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

Obama has endorsed handgun and assault weapon bans in the past, and I just won't have it. As the owner of 39 guns, the majority of them handguns or assault rifles, I would rather die with a gun in my hand than have my guns taken away from me.

I hate to turn it into a one-issue vote for me, but I'd rather have my guns and be in a terrible economy than be in a slightly less terrible economy and not have my guns.

I am voting for McCain. Why? I absolutely hate what the Neo-Cons and religious right have done to the Republican party

That'll show those dirty neocons and religious nuts! Vote in one of theirs! Thatll teach em to mess with the Republican Party!

I am voting for McCain. Why? I absolutely hate what the Neo-Cons and religious right have done to the Republican party, and I hate the tax-and-spend policies of the left.

Obama wants to take our guns away. (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

Obama has endorsed handgun and assault weapon bans in the past, and I just won't have it. As the owner of 39 guns, the majority of them handguns or assault rifles, I would rather die with a gun in my hand than have my guns taken away from me.

I hate to turn it into a one-issue vote for me, but I'd rather have my guns and be in a terrible economy than be in a slightly less terrible economy and not have my guns.
too bad the constitution wont let him take your guns away.

kinda silly to vote in someone you hate in order to keep the other guy from doing something he cant do.

BTW, which of these polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/)are accurate?

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/MvO.GIF

The ones more likely to be accurate are the ones with the larger sampling size with proportionately weighted demographics with an open reviewable sampling, a reasonably accurate track record and not prone to erratic results.

Or, I guess we could go with your old tried and true method of "whatever one agrees with my premise of the moment, no matter how afield it is of other results or unreliable the poll has been."

too bad the constitution wont let him take your guns away.

kinda silly to vote in someone you hate in order to keep the other guy from doing something he cant do.

Are you kidding? I'm totally voting for Obama solely to prevent McCain from gaining the power to levitate and fire laserbeams from his eyes.

too bad the constitution wont let him take your guns away.

kinda silly to vote in someone you hate in order to keep the other guy from doing something he cant do.
England had something about gun rights in their Bill of Rights too, and look at its gun control laws.

You can't own a handgun, and even a simple long rifle or shotgun takes an enormous amount of red tape to go through to get.

If there's anything England and the Bush Administration have taught us, it's that laws were made to be broken.

I am voting for McCain. Why? I absolutely hate what the Neo-Cons and religious right have done to the Republican party, and I hate the tax-and-spend policies of the left.

Obama wants to take our guns away. (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

Obama has endorsed handgun and assault weapon bans in the past, and I just won't have it. As the owner of 39 guns, the majority of them handguns or assault rifles, I would rather die with a gun in my hand than have my guns taken away from me.

I hate to turn it into a one-issue vote for me, but I'd rather have my guns and be in a terrible economy than be in a slightly less terrible economy and not have my guns.

Whether he wants to take your guns away or not, the fact is he cannot. So you're voting against him because of something that he can't do anyway.

England had something about gun rights in their Bill of Rights too, and look at its gun control laws.

You can't own a handgun, and even a simple long rifle or shotgun takes an enormous amount of red tape to go through to get.

If there's anything England and the Bush Administration have taught us, it's that laws were made to be broken.

See, Id rather have my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th ammendment rights than my 2nd ammendment rights.

England does not have a Bill of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights

What.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights

What.

Yes, I spoke improperly.

Incidentally, did you notice this:

Certain acts of Tom Brady and Randy Moss were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights

What.

Say, where do you live?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/


The mainstream media is starting tp pick up on the fires of racism McCain is fueling.

"A man who sees America the way you and I see America.. someone to secede from!" Wait, she didn't say that, shame.

I also find it fucking hilarious Cindy McCain says the day Obama voted against funding the troops chilled her. I wonder did she get a similar chill when her husband did it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights

What.
It is not analogous to the Bill of Rights in the US. It is an act of Parliament, like any other, which Parliament could repeal just like it could change any other law. In the US it would take a supermajority of both Congress and States.

I am voting for McCain. Why? I absolutely hate what the Neo-Cons and religious right have done to the Republican party, and I hate the tax-and-spend policies of the left.

Obama wants to take our guns away. (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)

Obama has endorsed handgun and assault weapon bans in the past, and I just won't have it. As the owner of 39 guns, the majority of them handguns or assault rifles, I would rather die with a gun in my hand than have my guns taken away from me.

I hate to turn it into a one-issue vote for me, but I'd rather have my guns and be in a terrible economy than be in a slightly less terrible economy and not have my guns.

Where did that source actually say anything about taking weapons away from anybody? I saw the Washington DC ban - is that what you're talking about? I saw restrictions in trading weapons... is that what you mean?

You'd rather die than not have guns... this I don't udnerstand. Surely if you died... you'd lose your guns anyway?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/

The mainstream media is starting tp pick up on the fires of racism McCain is fueling.

When you stir up anger like that, it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. It might not even be Obama or Biden, it could be some kid.

When it happens, I want to see McCain on trial.

See, Id rather have my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th ammendment rights than my 2nd ammendment rights.

You already have.

When you stir up anger like that, it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. It might not even be Obama or Biden, it could be some kid.

When it happens, I want to see McCain on trial.

I would as well.

You already have.

Meh?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/


The mainstream media is starting tp pick up on the fires of racism McCain is fueling.

There needs to be more coverage of this, combined with more vocal calls for it to stop. Does no one realize how dangerous this is?

There needs to be more coverage of this, combined with more vocal calls for it to stop. Does no one realize how dangerous this is?

Im just in total shock that the McCain campaign would stoop this low. I even have a hard time imagining Bush advised by Rove stooping this low.

There needs to be more coverage of this, combined with more vocal calls for it to stop. Does no one realize how dangerous this is?

People will figure it out when Palin starts inciting race riots.

People will figure it out when Palin starts inciting race riots.

We're getting there.

See, Id rather have my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th ammendment rights than my 2nd ammendment rights.

Can't I have all of them?

People will figure it out when Palin starts inciting race riots.
I hope that's simply pessimism talking. I really do.

We're getting there.

I just love her. She loves America!

I hope that's simply pessimism talking. I really do.

As do I, but I very much fear that it's an accurate prediction.

I just love her. She loves America!

People have already called for his death at her rallies.


Neo Art or Cat Tribe, out of curiosity...with McCain and Palin stoking the fires of hatred, IF someone kills someone else over it (maybe not even Barrak Obama) is it possible to put them on trial for anything? Even simple neglegence?


Sure they may walk, but I want to know if youd even have a case.

People have already called for his death at her rallies.

Neo Art or Cat Tribe, out of curiosity...with McCain and Palin stoking the fires of hatred, IF someone kills someone else over it (maybe not even Barrak Obama) is it possible to put them on trial for anything? Even simple neglegence?

Sure they may walk, but I want to know if youd even have a case.

As far as I can see, there should be a case to answer because of incitement - but you'd have to prove that the action was instigated by the speech.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

As far as I can see, there should be a case to answer because of incitement - but you'd have to prove that the action was instigated by the speech.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

Thats my thought too, but Im not in law school yet, so Im asking someone whos already been there.

As far as I can see, there should be a case to answer because of incitement - but you'd have to prove that the action was instigated by the speech.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

I think common peons have been tried on flimsier grounds, but McCain and Palin would slide.

I think common peons have been tried on flimsier grounds, but McCain and Palin would slide.

Oh, absolutely - even if it's legit, the law of the land seems to become optional at some point.

Which reminds me - anyone know what happened to the official Troopergate report? Wasn't that due today?

Oh, absolutely - even if it's legit, the law of the land seems to become optional at some point.

Which reminds me - anyone know what happened to the official Troopergate report? Wasn't that due today?

Yeah, but it might not be released today. It will be sometime this weekend I assume.

As far as I can see, there should be a case to answer because of incitement - but you'd have to prove that the action was instigated by the speech.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.My sister is a lawyer in Oregon, who once defended Metzger (leader of a notorious Aryan Nations group) in this kind of case (skinhead stomped some dark fellow after a Metzger rally) at the behest of the ACLU. It was a very unpleasant experience for her: Metzger kept calling her a "goddamn Jew" and suchlike; our family is not Jewish, if that matters, but it was impossible to persuade him that any ACLU-type could be anything else; he did not quite get the concept that she was keeping him out of jail. Oh well, she got to be on TV briefly.

My sister is a lawyer in Oregon, who once defended Metzger (leader of a notorious Aryan Nations group) in this kind of case (skinhead stomped some dark fellow after a Metzger rally) at the behest of the ACLU. It was a very unpleasant experience for her: Metzger kept calling her a "goddamn Jew" and suchlike; our family is not Jewish, if that matters, but it was impossible to persuade him that any ACLU-type could be anything else; he did not quite the concept that she was keeping him out of jail. Oh well, she got to be on TV briefly.

Always hilarious when they attack people who're defending their right to attack them.

My sister is a lawyer in Oregon, who once defended Metzger (leader of a notorious Aryan Nations group) in this kind of case (skinhead stomped some dark fellow after a Metzger rally) at the behest of the ACLU. It was a very unpleasant experience for her: Metzger kept calling her a "goddamn Jew" and suchlike; our family is not Jewish, if that matters, but it was impossible to persuade him that any ACLU-type could be anything else; he did not quite the concept that she was keeping him out of jail. Oh well, she got to be on TV briefly.

Couldn't your sister have provided him with... less than optimal legal assistance?

Couldn't your sister have provided him with... less than optimal legal assistance?No. She couldn't do that.

Couldn't your sister have provided him with... less than optimal legal assistance?

Not ethically, also it's not just about him. It's a precedent that would be used in future.

My sister is a lawyer in Oregon, who once defended Metzger (leader of a notorious Aryan Nations group) in this kind of case (skinhead stomped some dark fellow after a Metzger rally) at the behest of the ACLU. It was a very unpleasant experience for her: Metzger kept calling her a "goddamn Jew" and suchlike; our family is not Jewish, if that matters, but it was impossible to persuade him that any ACLU-type could be anything else; he did not quite get the concept that she was keeping him out of jail. Oh well, she got to be on TV briefly.

Doesn't 'Metzger' mean 'butcher' in German, or something?

What is it with white supremacists and the weird names....

Anyway - the fact that such a case was brought at all, suggests there is legitimacy to the concept, even if it wouldn't stand a chance of holding up.

Not ethically, also it's not just about him. It's a precedent that would be used in future.

*Sigh* I know. I sometimes let my rancour get the best of me.

*Sigh* I know. I sometimes let my rancour get the best of me.

"Sometimes"?;)

"Sometimes"?;)

I'd be plotting revenge against you if that weren't true. :p

*Sigh* I know. I sometimes let my rancour get the best of me.

Stab it with your lightsabre.

Stab it with your lightsabre.

It's in my heart...

*Stabs heart with lightsaber. As he vanishes, looks at you... and leaves you his last words*

"Great idea, asshole!"

It's in my heart...

*Stabs heart with lightsaber. As he vanishes, looks at you... and leaves you his last words*

"Great idea, asshole!"

That must have been uncomfortable...

I thought you meant: http://upx.primenova.com/2/swc/rancor.jpg

Oopsy!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/labor_warns_mcc.html


Ignore the comments. Theyre made by idiots.

Are you kidding? I'm totally voting for Obama solely to prevent McCain from gaining the power to levitate and fire laserbeams from his eyes.

Yeah, but everyone knows that the Presidency grants laser vision and levitation powers.

England had something about gun rights in their Bill of Rights too, and look at its gun control laws.

You can't own a handgun, and even a simple long rifle or shotgun takes an enormous amount of red tape to go through to get.

If there's anything England and the Bush Administration have taught us, it's that laws were made to be broken.
You know the clause in the English Bill of Rights only gave Upper Class Protestants the right to bear arms?
That sound reasonable to you? A reasonable clause that should be enforced today?
interesting statistics:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population
USA:
Homicide: 4.08
Suicide: 6.08
England/Wales:
Homicide: 0.12
Suicide: 0.22

Oh, absolutely - even if it's legit, the law of the land seems to become optional at some point.

Which reminds me - anyone know what happened to the official Troopergate report? Wasn't that due today?

Palin guilty of abusing her power

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is guilty of abuse of power, according to a probe by the state legislature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm

Just in case you didn't see it the first time:
Palin guilty of abusing her power

and once more for the sheer hell of it:
Palin guilty of abusing her power

and no. I am not getting any enjoyment out of this at all. nosiree. :wink:

To the popcorn!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7662820.stm

Just in case you didn't see it the first time:
Palin guilty of abusing her power

and once more for the sheer hell of it:
Palin guilty of abusing her power

and no. I am not getting any enjoyment out of this at all. nosiree. :wink:

"Even now, at thy right hand, until this cursed fate is spent. Is the one who houses, Asclepius, who descends from the milky way on high, Therefore I invoke thy. Feed with your fangs of poison!"

MAGNIFICENT! KYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I CAME TO QUOTE ANIME AND LAUGH AT BIBLE SPICE! AND I CAN DO BOTH! :D

"Even now, at thy right hand, until this cursed fate is spent. Is the one who houses, Asclepius, who descends from the milky way on high, Therefore I invoke thy. Feed with your fangs of poison!"

MAGNIFICENT! KYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Just saw the story on Yahoo (AP) also. The question is - will it lead to anything?

The GOP tried to pre-empt it with a denial, and I'm actually halfway convinced that most people leaning 'that way' already will conflate the two stories and believe Palin was absolved, or buy the McCain-Palin ticket's allegations that the investigation was rigged.

Just saw the story on Yahoo (AP) also. The question is - will it lead to anything?

The GOP tried to pre-empt it with a denial, and I'm actually halfway convinced that most people leaning 'that way' already will conflate the two stories and believe Palin was absolved, or buy the McCain-Palin ticket's allegations that the investigation was rigged.

Independents won't buy it, and people leaning Obama might get to close the deal. Plus, the bitch SUFFERS!

To the popcorn!

Fuck that! To the vodka!

Watching Larry King right now, so far here's the spin-

It's a non-story (naturally, could have cued that), this is a 'compromise' ruling to appease Obama partisans on the investigation board, she's 'totally allowed to so so what?'

Oh, and of course, "But-but-Clinton!"

Like fish on the bottom of the boat.

Also on King, a rare kudos for McCain, they showed some clips of McCain settling some people down, correcting an old lady who called him an Arab (and taking her mic away) and telling the crowd (to boos no less) that they shouldn't be afraid of Obama and that he was a decent person, McCain just thought he'd be a better president. A hearty "Welcome back!" to some of McCain's backbone...

Also on King, a rare kudos for McCain, they showed some clips of McCain settling some people down, correcting an old lady who called him an Arab (and taking her mic away) and telling the crowd (to boos no less) that they shouldn't be afraid of Obama and that he was a decent person, McCain just thought he'd be a better president. A hearty "Welcome back!" to some of McCain's backbone...

I'm waffling between believing that it's (more likely) a ploy to not look so hateful and hoping that it's (less likely) a sign that McCain's realized that this sort of dirty politics is too, too dirty.

I'm waffling between believing that it's (more likely) a ploy to not look so hateful and hoping that it's (less likely) a sign that McCain's realized that this sort of dirty politics is too, too dirty.

I suspect it's a little of both.

Also on King, a rare kudos for McCain, they showed some clips of McCain settling some people down, correcting an old lady who called him an Arab (and taking her mic away) and telling the crowd (to boos no less) that they shouldn't be afraid of Obama and that he was a decent person, McCain just thought he'd be a better president. A hearty "Welcome back!" to some of McCain's backbone...

I'm too much of a cynic.

I notice the last reports have Palin still making the same kinds of comments, while Johnboy has cleaned up his act - a little.

My cynical mind wonders if this MIGHT have something to do with McCain having learned how to survive in DC by now, and Palin being some n00b from nowhere. If that was the case, it might look a lot like McCain was using Palin as an attack dog, KNOWING she's gonna get hung out to dry...

I suspect it's a little of both.

It doesn't matter. At this point it looks like an admission of guilt and like his campaign is scattered and out of sync...

From a map I was just looking at on Yahoo - McCain and Obama are only about 9% apart in Georgia - McCain having lost about 3% in the last week or so, and Obama having gained about the same.

I find myself wondering if the Palin situation might be enough to at least make Georgia a tossup by election day.

*rubs paws together*

Also on King, a rare kudos for McCain, they showed some clips of McCain settling some people down, correcting an old lady who called him an Arab (and taking her mic away) and telling the crowd (to boos no less) that they shouldn't be afraid of Obama and that he was a decent person, McCain just thought he'd be a better president. A hearty "Welcome back!" to some of McCain's backbone...
im watching rachel maddow now. she had a reporter on who follows the mccain campaign. the reporter said that every person she talks to who goes to mccain rallies is a nut--the kind of person who thinks that obama is a secret moslem

i think it might be true. when he was in albuquerque this week he didnt quite fill a room that only holds 1000 people. (and it was one of those "obama is a terrorist" from the crowd rallies.) that is pathetic.

I find myself wondering if the Palin situation might be enough to at least make Georgia a tossup by election day.

*rubs paws together*

I think the fact that it even has a chance to think about possibly switching is unheralded and completely unexpected this cycle. Yeah, maybe some rumblings about the black vote, but nothing on this scale.

I think the fact that it even has a chance to think about possibly switching is unheralded and completely unexpected this cycle. Yeah, maybe some rumblings about the black vote, but nothing on this scale.

I'm amazed! I never thought I might see Georgia go blue. I still don't, to be honest but... wow. The fact that it might even be possible..?

Another thought - watching Larry King now, and the talkinghead just said that Palin is guilty of nothing 'criminal', but that there could be civil repurcussions.

Further - he said that a President found guilty of this kind of abuse of power would probably be eligible for impeachment.

What does that mean in the case of a VP? A VP candidate?

im watching rachel maddow now. she had a reporter on who follows the mccain campaign. the reporter said that every person she talks to who goes to mccain rallies is a nut--the kind of person who thinks that obama is a secret moslem

i think it might be true. when he was in albuquerque this week he didnt quite fill a room that only holds 1000 people. (and it was one of those "obama is a terrorist" from the crowd rallies.) that is pathetic.

I have only one question. When he left Albuquerque did he turn left or right? If the later he's probably horribly lost by know . . .

I'm amazed! I never thought I might see Georgia go blue. I still don't, to be honest but... wow. The fact that it might even be possible..?
the obama voter registration effort has put tons of new democrats on the roles.

and consider one factor...what percentage of georgia is african american or has african american relatives? black people almost always vote democratic but they dont turn out in large numbers. if THIS time they are stoked and twice or even 3 times as many turn out to vote, it could make a huge difference.

if all those white people whose sister has married an african american (or whatever combination of relationships end up with a black relative) are willing to vote obama because they arent afraid of black people, that could make a huge difference.

is it enough to offset the extra religious right voters who will come out in large numbers for mccain (maybe. they dont really like him and the national enquirer has been doing a hatched job on palin)? dunno. but it could happen.

and that is ignoring all the youth vote that may well turn out this time. and the huge number of people who are scared for our economic future and dont see mccain doing anything about it.

I have only one question. When he left Albuquerque did he turn left or right? If the later he's probably horribly lost by know . . .

I hope he stocked up on carrots...

I have only one question. When he left Albuquerque did he turn left or right? If the later he's probably horribly lost by know . . .
hmmmmm

he hasnt been the same since he left town...

Another thought - watching Larry King now, and the talkinghead just said that Palin is guilty of nothing 'criminal', but that there could be civil repurcussions.

Further - he said that a President found guilty of this kind of abuse of power would probably be eligible for impeachment.

What does that mean in the case of a VP? A VP candidate?
it could be impeachment material for the alaskan governor but not for the vice president should she win the election.

its doubtful that the alaskan legislature will impeach her though. i dont think she has had enough time to piss off enough of them.

the obama voter registration effort has put tons of new democrats on the roles.

and consider one factor...what percentage of georgia is african american or has african american relatives? black people almost always vote democratic but they dont turn out in large numbers. if THIS time they are stoked and twice or even 3 times as many turn out to vote, it could make a huge difference.

if all those white people whose sister has married an african american (or whatever combination of relationships end up with a black relative) are willing to vote obama because they arent afraid of black people, that could make a huge difference.

is it enough to offset the extra religious right voters who will come out in large numbers for mccain (maybe. they dont really like him and the national enquirer has been doing a hatched job on palin)? dunno. but it could happen.

and that is ignoring all the youth vote that may well turn out this time. and the huge number of people who are scared for our economic future and dont see mccain doing anything about it.

Most of the people I meet every day in Georgia, are people like my mother-in-law, who 'won't vote for a damn n****r no matter what'.

Yes, I see Georgia through a myopic lens, but still, I really never expected to see this race even close to being close.

Most of the people I meet every day in Georgia, are people like my mother-in-law, who 'won't vote for a damn n****r no matter what'.

Yes, I see Georgia through a myopic lens, but still, I really never expected to see this race even close to being close.
yes but how many of those who have a black son in law say that they would never vote for a n*****?

Most of the people I meet every day in Georgia, are people like my mother-in-law, who 'won't vote for a damn n****r no matter what'.

Yes, I see Georgia through a myopic lens, but still, I really never expected to see this race even close to being close.

Ah, in-laws. The fine print of any marriage.

yes but how many of those who have a black son in law say that they would never vote for a n*****?

Around here? One. I know her. Good white girls don't marry them around here.

A hearty "Welcome back!" to some of McCain's backbone...

He didn't have a choice. Like it or not, his lack of backbone was at risk of leading the news cycle for the whole weekend, and even the red-meat idiots in the RNC could see the negative repercussions in that.

I've tried to be somewhat non-partisan here on Jolt, and be moderator-fair about presenting both sides. However ... I used to respect the image that McCain projected. I've come to realize that there's nothing behind that image but opportunistic posturing. I'm glad he ran and showed that side of his character, and hope this election ends in his retirement from politics.

Then you have not been paying attention to current events. Yesterday's news is still more compelling than news from 30 - 100 years ago.

As for your cryptic Kennedy reference, I neither know nor care what you are referring to. Dirt on JFK doesn't give so much cynic-cred when you try to skim over the 2000 and 2004 election controversies. Hey! You know who else ran crooked elections? The ROMANS! Yeah, what the fuck am I tallking about the Republicans for after the ROMANS? Geez, I should get with the program.

Oh, and it is spelled "Tammany Hall". It was an actual building. And they didn't steal elections, they rigged them. Functional difference.

My point was, you're singling out the Republicans as if they're the only cheaters. You of all people should know better, that the Democrats aren't any better on this line.

(2000 and 2004 were NOT stolen. Period.)

It's frustrating.

They just read a McCain campaign press release on Larry King...

I can't find it anywhere online. It's not added to the Palin story on Yahoo yet... it's not even UP on the McCain campaign site...

it could be impeachment material for the alaskan governor but not for the vice president should she win the election.

Tell that to Spiro Agnew.

I posted this earlier and got no response I think due to the whole FeO disrespect fiasco so I am posting it again.

A question for the Americans.

Why do people care that much for polling results on the Popular vote, since it isn't the popular vote which decides who wins?

Shouldn't when looking at polling generally you should turn your attention to the Electoral votes and popular vote polls for each individual state?

Maybe I got no response because I am on every body's ignore list, but I will soon see.

We've... we've been looking at the popular vote by state. We've been looking at the electoral votes. What the hell did you think all those triple digit numbers were?

I posted this earlier and got no response I think due to the whole FeO disrespect fiasco so I am posting it again.



Maybe I got no response because I am on every body's ignore list, but I will soon see.

Because you're high. We've been discussing at length the electoral map.

The popular vote is still an indicator of how hard or easy it is to shift leaning states as well as to track and predict the shifting of leaning states, so it's still relevant. But we've argued about electoral vote totals since the primaries. Almost a sickening amount, about whether or not candidates had the ability to turn certain states, about how many states each of them have to turn in order to make the magic 270...I seriously have no idea how you missed it, its been dominating the conversation.

If you're a McCain supporter right now you might want to focus on popular vote just to make yourself feel better. Five to eleven percent seem surmountable when you look at as many as seven states that McCain has to run the board on to win where Obama needs only one of them-and where he leads in just about all of them. As Obama's team stated when they began this, they're not going to find themselves on Nov. 4th hoping for a single state.

I'm waffling between believing that it's (more likely) a ploy to not look so hateful and hoping that it's (less likely) a sign that McCain's realized that this sort of dirty politics is too, too dirty.

I'm too much of a cynic.

I notice the last reports have Palin still making the same kinds of comments, while Johnboy has cleaned up his act - a little.

My cynical mind wonders if this MIGHT have something to do with McCain having learned how to survive in DC by now, and Palin being some n00b from nowhere. If that was the case, it might look a lot like McCain was using Palin as an attack dog, KNOWING she's gonna get hung out to dry...

im watching rachel maddow now. she had a reporter on who follows the mccain campaign. the reporter said that every person she talks to who goes to mccain rallies is a nut--the kind of person who thinks that obama is a secret moslem

i think it might be true. when he was in albuquerque this week he didnt quite fill a room that only holds 1000 people. (and it was one of those "obama is a terrorist" from the crowd rallies.) that is pathetic.
My take on the video of McCain trying to talk down those rabid loons was of a man who just realized that he was surrounded by crazy people. I got the sense of a man who had just looked the beast he created in the face, up close, for the first time, and got scared.

And I have no sympathy for him. His "backbone" comes too little, too late. No responsible person would ever have said the things he did about Obama in the first place. McCain made a political whore of himself, and if he is uncomfortable now that he realizes just who he pimped himself out to, that does not redeem his character in my opinion.

Uh...wasn't John F Kennedy running for the Democrats? Wasn't Tamminiy Hall running the Democrats?

I'm not so sure about your logic here.

My point was, you're singling out the Republicans as if they're the only cheaters. You of all people should know better, that the Democrats aren't any better on this line.

So your evidence that Democrats are cheaters is based on accusations that I bet you can't sustain about an election 48 years ago and existence in New York of a Democratic politcal machine than essentially died in 1934?

I'm not going to argue that the Republicans are inherently more corrupt than the Democrats, but I would argue that the trend in recent elections has been serious concerns of election tampering by the Republicans and NOT by the Democrats. Does the phrase "voter purge" mean anything to you?

(2000 and 2004 were NOT stolen. Period.)

So I imagined Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=531&page=98), 531 U.S. 98 (2000)? Good to know. Now I can stop worrying about it.

My point was, you're singling out the Republicans as if they're the only cheaters. You of all people should know better, that the Democrats aren't any better on this line.
Don't hand me that. You know perfectly well that I was only making a snide remark referring to specific events in recent history, not trying to paint the Dems or any other political group as innocent of anything. I respect you very much, but kindly do not waste my time waggling your finger at me over such trivial nonsense. Pick someone else's molehill to make a mountain out of.

(2000 and 2004 were NOT stolen. Period.)
Sez you. I say different. My opinion is based on what I observed at the time, and in 8 years, I have never seen any evidence to make me change my opinion. I stand by it, and I will neither amend it nor apologize for it. Don't bother arguing it with me unless you have real new evidence, in which case start another thread.

My take on the video of McCain trying to talk down those rabid loons was of a man who just realized that he was surrounded by crazy people. I got the sense of a man who had just looked the beast he created in the face, up close, for the first time, and got scared.

And I have no sympathy for him. His "backbone" comes too little, too late. No responsible person would ever have said the things he did about Obama in the first place. McCain made a political whore of himself, and if he is uncomfortable now that he realizes just who he pimped himself out to, that does not redeem his character in my opinion.


McCains conscience (the 2000 McCain) probably kicked in and showed him what hes become. And hes rightfully disgusted by it.

McCains conscience (the 2000 McCain) probably kicked in and showed him what hes become. And hes rightfully disgusted by it.

Probably has not a little to do with his own down ballot effect becoming almost as toxic as Bush's. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/does-mccain-have-cooties.html)

(2000 and 2004 were NOT stolen. Period.)
Kyro, leaving aside the claims of outright fraud (I expect easily 0.1% of the votes to be fraudulent under ordinary circumstances, well above the magnitude of "victory" in Florida, and any of the alleged irregularities in Florida in that particular election could account for that margin through the deduction of votes), Gore had a majority of the votes cast in Florida by any consistent metric for reading voter intent. The final recount (completed late 2001) demonstrated this for both of the standards offered during the debacle. It is only in the scenarios of an incomplete or inconsistent count of the ballots in the state that Bush managed a slim margin.

So, yes, given that had the state of Florida correctly counted all its ballots the first time around, or recounted promptly, or even simply been barred from the electoral college as a result of their inability to conduct a recount on time, Gore won, well, that makes the election misappropriated. Period.

So your evidence that Democrats are cheaters is based on accusations that I bet you can't sustain about an election 48 years ago and existence in New York of a Democratic politcal machine than essentially died in 1934?

I'm not going to argue that the Republicans are inherently more corrupt than the Democrats, but I would argue that the trend in recent elections has been serious concerns of election tampering by the Republicans and NOT by the Democrats. Does the phrase "voter purge" mean anything to you?



So I imagined Bush v. Gore (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=531&page=98), 531 U.S. 98 (2000)? Good to know. Now I can stop worrying about it.

Don't hand me that. You know perfectly well that I was only making a snide remark referring to specific events in recent history, not trying to paint the Dems or any other political group as innocent of anything. I respect you very much, but kindly do not waste my time waggling your finger at me over such trivial nonsense. Pick someone else's molehill to make a mountain out of.


Sez you. I say different. My opinion is based on what I observed at the time, and in 8 years, I have never seen any evidence to make me change my opinion. I stand by it, and I will neither amend it nor apologize for it. Don't bother arguing it with me unless you have real new evidence, in which case start another thread.

Righto, righto.

Just keeping you on your toes. :tongue:

Kyro, leaving aside the claims of outright fraud (I expect easily 0.1% of the votes to be fraudulent under ordinary circumstances, well above the magnitude of "victory" in Florida, and any of the alleged irregularities in Florida in that particular election could account for that margin through the deduction of votes), Gore had a majority of the votes cast in Florida by any consistent metric for reading voter intent. The final recount (completed late 2001) demonstrated this for both of the standards offered during the debacle. It is only in the scenarios of an incomplete or inconsistent count of the ballots in the state that Bush managed a slim margin.

So, yes, given that had the state of Florida correctly counted all its ballots the first time around, or recounted promptly, or even simply been barred from the electoral college as a result of their inability to conduct a recount on time, Gore won, well, that makes the election misappropriated. Period.
I am actually aware of this.

Just saw this. Nothing to do with the election, but bloody hilarious nonetheless.

McCain gets Obamarolled (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg)

I love it so much, I'm sigging it...

Just saw this. Nothing to do with the election, but bloody hilarious nonetheless.

McCain gets Obamarolled (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg)

I love it so much, I'm sigging it...

Oh my goodness...

This is truly divine. The internet, how I do love thee!

By the way, you guys remember this:

http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/uselections-pokemon-thumb.gif

I'm noticing that its prediction seems to have come true, pretty much.

by the way, you guys remember this:

http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/uselections-pokemon-thumb.gif

i'm noticing that its prediction seems to have come true, pretty much.

brilliant!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Sounds like that when Obama wins, there's going to be a civil war. And so there should be.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Sounds like that when Obama wins, there's going to be a civil war. And so there should be.
Gosh, cuz no one was opposed to Bush winning...

I don't think anybody was genuinely scared of Bush. You know who else the Americans were scared of? The king of Great Britain.

I don't think anybody was genuinely scared of Bush. You know who else the Americans were scared of? The king of Great Britain.Do you know who else the Americans weren't scared of? The King of Great Britain. Quite a lot of them.

Rusty, given your complete and total lack of knowledge as to how the U.S. government actually works, you'll forgive me if I don't take your opinion on this seriously.

Do you know who else the Americans weren't scared of? The King of Great Britain. Quite a lot of them.

You don't revolt against somebody you're not scared of. That's what bravery is, fighting in spite of fear, not without it.

Rusty, given your complete and total lack of knowledge as to how the U.S. government actually works, you'll forgive me if I don't take your opinion on this seriously.

I know how you're government works. Some guy comes out and says "Look at me! I'm not Bush! And I'm also black" and he suddenly becomes president.

You don't revolt against somebody you're not scared of. That's what bravery is, fighting in spite of fear, not without it.Jeez, go play some Colonization. Even that simplified reduction of what happened is more accurate than the nonsense you're spouting.

I know how you're government works. Some guy comes out and says "Look at me! I'm not Bush! And I'm also black" and he suddenly becomes president.

Obama is competent. I'm not sure if I'd vote for him, but he's competent. I miss competence. Don't you?

Obama is competent. I'm not sure if I'd vote for him, but he's competent. I miss competence. Don't you?

No, he's really not. Anybody who advocates pulling out of Iraq is living in a dream world.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Sounds like that when Obama wins, there's going to be a civil war. And so there should be.

If it means widespread destruction that humbles the American people, sees the warmongering types contracting a serious contagion of lead poisoning and gives rise to a more humble, less empty headed egoists, I'm all for it.

I know how you're government works. Some guy comes out and says "Look at me! I'm not Bush! And I'm also black" and he suddenly becomes president.

Do you take "ignoramus maximus" lessons, or does it come to you naturally?

No, he's really not. Anybody who advocates pulling out of Iraq is living in a dream world.

Why?

Why?

Because they admit it was a waste of effort to try and govern 3 heavily divided peoples democratically in the ruins of a defeated state, causing a loss of face?

Why?

Do left-wingers live in a world where wars consist of invasion, victory, leaving? I'd like to see that.

Here's a trivia question: WWII ended in 1945, until when did the US occupy Germany and Japan?

Here's a trivia question: WWII ended in 1945, until when did the US occupy Germany and Japan?

Trick question? They haven't left?

No, he's really not. Anybody who advocates pulling out of Iraq is living in a dream world.

Fuck Iraq. They weren't a threat in 2002, they aren't a threat now and they won't be a threat in 2022. Their internal problems are their problems and quite frankly, we aren't even capable of understanding their problems. They'll be stronger without us.

Trick question? They haven't left?

Exactly. What did you people think, that Iraq and Afghanistan would be in and out jobs, and then they'd resolve themselves? Americans are deluded, thinking it's still a "war or no war" question. The time for choices is over, and if US forces pull out of Iraq, well, if you think it's bad now, you're in for a surprise.

Fuck Iraq. They weren't a threat in 2002, they aren't a threat now and they won't be a threat in 2022. Their internal problems are their problems and quite frankly, we aren't even capable of understanding their problems. They'll be stronger without us.

Iraq's insurgents are one of the biggest potential threats in the world; if the US leave, they'll have a chance to take power, and if they make it, you'll have yet another state sanctioning Osama and his friends.

Iraq's insurgents are one of the biggest potential threats in the world; if the US leave, they'll have a chance to take power, and if they make it, you'll have yet another state sanctioning Osama and his friends.

Unless Iraqi insurgents grow wings, they aren't a threat to anybody outside of Iraq. Seeing as how the insurgents are predominantly Sunni and Iraq is predominantly Shia, I really don't see them regaining power unless the US actually funded them again like in the eighties.

Edit:

Oh, and by the way, we aren't going to be fighting anyone if we're broke. :p

Unless Iraqi insurgents grow wings, they aren't a threat to anybody outside of Iraq. Seeing as how the insurgents are predominantly Sunni and Iraq is predominantly Shia, I really don't see them regaining power unless the US actually funded them again like in the eighties.

Edit:

Oh, and by the way, we aren't going to be fighting anyone if we're broke. :p

I'm sure the Shia LOVE the US. They all hate you, and the Shia will have their buddy Iran helping out.

I'm sure the Shia LOVE the US. They all hate you, and the Shia will have their buddy Iran helping out.

Yep, because Iraq and Iran have always been the best of pals. :p

Yep, because Iraq and Iran have always been the best of pals. :p

They would be if the Shia were dominant in Iraq. They never were.

They would be if the Shia were dominant in Iraq. They never were.

I wouldn't count on that. I suspect that Muqtada al-Sadr for example cares more about his personal power than he does for any perceived camaraderie with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Khamenei has always been nervous about the influence Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani already has in Iran.

No, I don't think they'll be friends any time soon.

They would be if the Shia were dominant in Iraq. They never were.

This is a bit of an over-simplification. Iranian Shia and Arab (Iraqi) Shia are different culturally. Ask any Iranian what they think about Arabs and you will hear about how the Iranian culture is better then the Arabs. This means tension between the two would be likely if an outside force was not giving them a reason to work together.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.crowd/index.html

Sounds like that when Obama wins, there's going to be a civil war. And so there should be.

Just exactly what do you mean "And so there should be"? What kind of person wishes that on other people? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Just exactly what do you mean "And so there should be"? What kind of person wishes that on other people? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Islamaphobia I suspect. ;)

Just exactly what do you mean "And so there should be"? What kind of person wishes that on other people? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I just want the US to lose already. Worst hyperpower ever.

By the way, you guys remember this:

http://www.wayofthemind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/uselections-pokemon-thumb.gif
That.
is.
superb.
Utterly brilliant. Thank you.

Im just in total shock that the McCain campaign would stoop this low. I even have a hard time imagining Bush advised by Rove stooping this low.
But wait! There's more!
They're stooping even lower - Guess who's to blame for all those insane racists yelling "Kill him!" and "Terrorist!" at McCain's meetings?
Obama of course. That bastard is forcing them to become violent by saying McCain shouldn't encourage them:

MCCAIN CAMP DEFENDS THE BEHAVIOR?
Earlier today, Obama remarked on recent outbursts of "Traitor!" "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" at McCain campaign events. "It's easy to rile up a crowd," Obama said. "Nothing's easier than riling up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States."

In response, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace released this statement, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports. "Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people Obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom."

"Attacking our supporters is a new low for the campaign that's run more millions of dollars of negative ads than any other in history."

*** UPDATE *** McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers adds in another statement: “Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx#comments

One does pause to wonder just how much lower McCain can go. I guess we should give him some credit for proving there isn't a level he's not willing to sink to - and then, as soon as getting to that level, start looking at ways to descend even further.

Do left-wingers live in a world where wars consist of invasion, victory, leaving? I'd like to see that.

Here's a trivia question: WWII ended in 1945, until when did the US occupy Germany and Japan?
I'm pretty sure major military occupation ended once the two countries were able to govern themselves adequately, which is exactly what's being advocated here.

Trick question? They haven't left?

Not exactly. We're still stationing troops there, but only because

A. Germany is the centre of our European Command

B. We have a specific agreement with the Japanese to defend them.

We're hardly occupying them anymore. Anyone who thinks we're actually still OCCUPYING Japan and Germany is an idiot.

I just want the US to lose already. Worst hyperpower ever.

Pfft, you're just pissed that you almost got invaded in World War II.

I'm pretty sure major military occupation ended once the two countries were able to govern themselves adequately, which is exactly what's being advocated here.

Really? Then why all the talk about pulling out? The Iraqi government is still utterly useless. Many of the troops on their side still say that they could join the insurgents if they wanted.

TBTW, which of these polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/)are accurate?

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/MvO.GIF
Ah. I see I need to educate you once more about how polling and stats work.
Just because the numbers are different doesn't mean the polls contradict each other. Polling has what is called an margin of error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error). Usually this is +/- 3.1% due to sample size.

Let's assume, for simplicity sakes, all the polls had the same sample size and a 3.1% error rate.
The range for each over those 14 polls is:
McCain: 39 - 45%
Obama: 46 - 53%

The average over all those 14 polls is
McCain:42.5%
Obama: 49.3%

Thus McCain's support is 42.5% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 39.4 and 45.6. An upper and lower boundary where all 14 polls fall within.
Obama's support is 49.3% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 46.2 and 52.4. An upper and lower boundary where all but one of those 14 polls fall within.

Simply put, all those polls support each other and are giving us the same information. Therefore we can say they are all accurate.
So your point is....what exactly?

Really? Then why all the talk about pulling out? The Iraqi government is still utterly useless. Many of the troops on their side still say that they could join the insurgents if they wanted.

Obama's plan is to essentially prepare the government to be effective, rather than diddling around with his thumb up his ass like Bush is.

Tell that to Spiro Agnew.
welll spiro was going to be indicted wasnt he? its a long time ago so im a bit fuzzy on what exactly was going on when he resigned.

if she gets elected vp she cant be impeached as alaskan governor since she'll have to resign that office. i dont think its a criminal offense so ...what charges might then be filed in alaska?

if she had been in office long enough to amass that many enemies, maybe. but she hasnt.

Ah. I see I need to educate you once more about how polling and stats work.
Just because the numbers are different doesn't mean the polls contradict each other. Polling has what is called an margin of error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error). Usually this is +/- 3.1% due to sample size.

Let's assume, for simplicity sakes, all the polls had the same sample size and a 3.1% error rate.
The range for each over those 14 polls is:
McCain: 39 - 45%
Obama: 46 - 53%

The average over all those 14 polls is
McCain:42.5%
Obama: 49.3%

Thus McCain's support is 42.5% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 39.4 and 45.6. An upper and lower boundary where all 14 polls fall within.
Obama's support is 49.3% +/- 3.1, meaning his support falls somewhere between 46.2 and 52.4. An upper and lower boundary where all but one of those 14 polls fall within.

Simply put, all those polls support each other and are giving us the same information. Therefore we can say they are all accurate.
So your point is....what exactly?

That he hasn't a clue how polls work.

Obama's plan is to essentially prepare the government to be effective, rather than diddling around with his thumb up his ass like Bush is.

Huh? He wants to remove combat troops by mid-2010; that's just completely stupid. He wants to focus on training Iraqi troops, which won't work, considering many of them are virtually mercenaries, they pick and choose who they fight for.

Huh? He wants to remove combat troops by mid-2010; that's just completely stupid. He wants to focus on training Iraqi troops, which won't work, considering many of them are virtually mercenaries, they pick and choose who they fight for.

Okay, Captain Plans-a-Lot, how would YOU solve this?

Okay, Captain Plans-a-Lot, how would YOU solve this?

Another hundred years in Iraq!

Okay, Captain Plans-a-Lot, how would YOU solve this?

You can't. You're in Iraq. If you leave, it will collapse. Deal with it.

welll spiro was going to be indicted wasnt he? its a long time ago so im a bit fuzzy on what exactly was going on when he resigned.

if she gets elected vp she cant be impeached as alaskan governor since she'll have to resign that office. i dont think its a criminal offense so ...what charges might then be filed in alaska?

if she had been in office long enough to amass that many enemies, maybe. but she hasnt.
Apparently, she amassed plenty of enemies over there in her short 18-month career, many of them fellow Republicans.

Also, legal consequences of the Alaska Senate's finding are not as important as the immediate political tactical consequences of it, as it renders her unable to continue floating suppositions that Obama might not be trustworthy enough for public office, when we now have incontrovertible proof that she "violated the public trust" while in office.

As to legal consequences, according to all the analysts on CNN and MSNBC, although she violated Alaska law by "violating the public trust," that is more of a technical violation that would lead to impeachment rather than criminal charges. However, this official finding of wrongdoing on her part does potentially open the way for Monegan to bring a civil suit against her for violation of his civil rights regarding employment (wrongful dismissal, that sort of thing).

So essentially, in terms of legal entanglement, this creates an embarrassing boil on her ass that could potentially hassle her for years to come, if Monegan is feels like it.

You can't. You're in Iraq. If you leave, it will collapse. Deal with it.

I see.

So if it's damned if we do, damned if we don't, why SHOULD we stay in?

At the very least let's get the Iraqis to foot the bill. They've got the spare change.

At least if you stay, you have control of the situation.

So essentially, in terms of legal entanglement, this creates an embarrassing boil on her ass that could potentially hassle her for years to come, if Monegan is feels like it.

he was interviewed on rachel maddow last night. he seemed like he might just be in the mood to be palin's boil.

he was interviewed on rachel maddow last night. he seemed like he might just be in the mood to be palin's boil.
I saw that. I was like, "go for it, brother," but that's just how I swing. If I were in his shoes, and the state legislature had just handed me some strings to jerk her around with, you better believe I'd be adding her discomfort to my list of pleasant hobbies.

One of the many lessons that are being driven home for me by this whole mess is that villains don't really have to worry about blowback from their grand evil schemes. What comes back to haunt them is not blame for the huge screw-ups or injustices. Rather, it's that one guy -- that one person out of the whole scene -- maybe the one they hardly even noticed or thought about at the time -- that one person they pissed off who is not going to forget about it. That one Inigo Montoya who is going to hound them, Nemesis-like, forever, over that one thing they did personally to him.

I love that guy. That guy is the reason there's such a thing as "poetic justice" in life. People like Palin think they're so high and mighty, so in with god, whatever, but all their delusions of grandeur aside, it always comes down to them versus "that one pissed off person."

I saw that. I was like, "go for it, brother," but that's just how I swing. If I were in his shoes, and the state legislature had just handed me some strings to jerk her around with, you better believe I'd be adding her discomfort to my list of pleasant hobbies.

One of the many lessons that are being driven home for me by this whole mess is that villains don't really have to worry about blowback from their grand evil schemes. What comes back to haunt them is not blame for the huge screw-ups or injustices. Rather, it's that one guy -- that one person out of the whole scene -- maybe the one they hardly even noticed or thought about at the time -- that one person they pissed off who is not going to forget about it. That one Inigo Montoya who is going to hound them, Nemesis-like, forever, over that one thing they did personally to him.

I love that guy. That guy is the reason there's such a thing as "poetic justice" in life. People like Palin think they're so high and mighty, so in with god, whatever, but all their delusions of grandeur aside, it always comes down to them versus "that one pissed off person."
soooo true!

she left ONE guy still alive and without any reason NOT to go after her. all the politicians have to go along to get along but not this guy. he has no downside if he decides to go after her and keep going after her until he sees her destroyed.

And good for him, too. I don't think this is an end to negativity, but what say you about McCain's effort to at least limit the personal attacks?

Linque (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/obama_24;_ylt=At0.kIKDsGjfis4fvXbNMs9h24cA).

PHILADELPHIA - Barack Obama acknowledged Saturday that John McCain has asked his supporters to temper their attacks on him. But the Democratic presidential nominee said the Republican's economic plans remain wrong for the country.

"I appreciated his reminder that we can disagree while still being respectful of each other," Obama told supporters in Philadelphia. He said McCain "has served this country with honor, and he deserves our thanks for that."

However, Obama said, McCain "still doesn't get it" regarding the economy.

At a town-hall event Friday in Minnesota, McCain took the microphone from a woman who had called Obama an Arab. McCain said, "No, ma'am," and he called Obama "a decent, family man."

McCain drew boos at the same event when he told a supporter who expressed fear at the prospect of Obama's election that the Democrat is a "person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

Those reassurances aside, McCain's TV ads continue to attack Obama sharply. Some hit his ties to a former radical who co-founded a violent anti-war group in the 1960s.

Better than letting slams like "Arab" go, isn't it?

I thought it amusing that he apparently thinks Arab precludes being a decent family man.

I thought it amusing that he apparently thinks Arab precludes being a decent family man.
I noticed that, too. He's a decent family man, not an Arab. He's a citizen, not a Muslim.

If I were an Arab or a Muslim, I'd be feeling like the cavemen from the Geico ads at this point.

That he hasn't a clue how polls work.
That, and he only likes ones which support his opinions.

I noticed that, too. He's a decent family man, not an Arab. He's a citizen, not a Muslim.

If I were an Arab or a Muslim, I'd be feeling like the cavemen from the Geico ads at this point.

Big tent party my hairy white ass.

I thought it amusing that he apparently thinks Arab precludes being a decent family man.

I noticed that, too. He's a decent family man, not an Arab. He's a citizen, not a Muslim.

If I were an Arab or a Muslim, I'd be feeling like the cavemen from the Geico ads at this point.

Yeah, I get that too. I guess I was just surprised to see him shut down a rabid supporter. I think it would have been asking too much to have him do that AND point out that using "Arab" pejoratively makes you a bit of a bigoted asshat.

Big tent party my hairy white ass.

Yours too? Huh. Lotta that goin' around.

I'd much rather see Palin running in place of McCain.

I'd much rather see Palin running in place of McCain.
Me too. Then she'd have no hope whatsoever.

I noticed that, too. He's a decent family man, not an Arab. He's a citizen, not a Muslim.

If I were an Arab or a Muslim, I'd be feeling like the cavemen from the Geico ads at this point.

It's so easy a Terrorist could do it.

At least if you stay, you have control of the situation.


Yea, and have our soliders come home in body bags all the time. *sighs* We had that happen in the droves in Vietnam. Why do we have to repeat history? The truth is the Iraqis don't want the US there. Why should the US stay there and dominate a sovereign nation? It makes the US look like imperalists, which we probably are.

Yes, we are damned if we stay and we are damned if we leave, but why should we compound an error by staying? There really isn't an answer to the problem, but it's a worthless endevor in staying.

Yea, and have our soliders come home in body bags all the time. *sighs* We had that happen in the droves in Vietnam. Why do we have to repeat history? The truth is the Iraqis don't want the US there. Why should the US stay there and dominate a sovereign nation? It makes the US look like imperalists, which we probably are.

Yes, we are damned if we stay and we are damned if we leave, but why should we compound an error by staying? There really isn't an answer to the problem, but it's a worthless endevor in staying.

I find it interesting that the Administration seems to understand that concept when it comes to bailing out the finance corporations that tanked the economy, but not in Iraq. "We MUST spend $700B of taxpayer money because staying here and doing nothing will make it worse" -- why couldn't they have seen that with Iraq?