NationStates Jolt Archive

Want to call it a draw?

nevah!

You mean like every other elected politician?

Sexist!

Sexist!Commie!

Commie!

Terrorist!

Terrorist!

homersexual!

homersexual!

That's just low.

homersexual!I don't even know what that is. :eek:
That's just low.Insults that aren't comprehensible are...sort of low, I guess. :)

I don't even know what that is. :eek:


Think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts

Think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r295/jadedguy/homersexual.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r295/jadedguy/homersexual.jpg

Oh, that's just wrong.









Yet, strangely right, also....

think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts think unsexy thoughts

I don't even know what that is. :eek:

Feels like I'm wearing...
nothing at all

Nothing at all!

NOTHING AT ALL!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v252/rotaryfreak/c8530331f8d5a25d556c6fb9b5693c9c.gif

Palin should step down, conservative commentator says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/):


(emphasis added)

The shine is definitely off the apple.

really she SHOULD step down

what if a picture surfaces showing obama blowing a goat? mccain could WIN for gods sake. we need a VP who could do the job of PRESIDENT not take the place of miss america should the winner be unable to serve.

really she SHOULD step down

what if a picture surfaces showing obama blowing a goat? mccain could WIN for gods sake. we need a VP who could do the job of PRESIDENT not take the place of miss america should the winner be unable to serve.

I'm beginning to wonder if Palin's nomination wasn't a sucker-job.

I mean - it would be way beyond the degree of subtlety I'd expect from the GOP, but... what if Palin was designed to be pushed as a candidate, having been selected specifically for the combined 'looks good coming in, but it's a shitbomb when it arrives' factor, JUST to persuade someone like... Condi to jump in at the last second, securing a huge 'bounce' in the last few days?

Sort of... pretending to be going with Sarah, so you can get a sympathy fuck off Condi?

(I now have to go and be sick).

I'm beginning to wonder if Palin's nomination wasn't a sucker-job.

I mean - it would be way beyond the degree of subtlety I'd expect from the GOP, but... what if Palin was designed to be pushed as a candidate, having been selected specifically for the combined 'looks good coming in, but it's a shitbomb when it arrives' factor, JUST to persuade someone like... Condi to jump in at the last second, securing a huge 'bounce' in the last few days?

Sort of... pretending to be going with Sarah, so you can get a sympathy fuck off Condi?

(I now have to go and be sick).
MAYYYYYbe

but condi sent written confirmation to the senate yesterday that she participated in talks with other cabinet officers back in 2002 about what kinds of torture should be permitted with captured terrorist suspects.

it might not be the best time for her to jump into the campaign

i STILL wish he would go with heather wilson (R NM). she was on TV briefly yesterday and while she isnt the prettiest girl, she knows everything about everything.

I'm beginning to wonder if Palin's nomination wasn't a sucker-job.

I mean - it would be way beyond the degree of subtlety I'd expect from the GOP, but... what if Palin was designed to be pushed as a candidate, having been selected specifically for the combined 'looks good coming in, but it's a shitbomb when it arrives' factor, JUST to persuade someone like... Condi to jump in at the last second, securing a huge 'bounce' in the last few days?

Sort of... pretending to be going with Sarah, so you can get a sympathy fuck off Condi?

(I now have to go and be sick).

dangerous game, given the eagleton precedent

I'm beginning to wonder if Palin's nomination wasn't a sucker-job.

I mean - it would be way beyond the degree of subtlety I'd expect from the GOP, but... what if Palin was designed to be pushed as a candidate, having been selected specifically for the combined 'looks good coming in, but it's a shitbomb when it arrives' factor, JUST to persuade someone like... Condi to jump in at the last second, securing a huge 'bounce' in the last few days?

Sort of... pretending to be going with Sarah, so you can get a sympathy fuck off Condi?

(I now have to go and be sick).

I can't help but think that if the McCain campaign truly did try something like this, it would backfire on them far worse than this debate stand-off has. I can imagine all of the headlines/op-ed pieces referring to McCain's lack of judgment and desperation. He'd appear even more erratic, and on such a huge issue. (I should emphasize here: I don't think it's plausible, and I'm not suggesting you really do either)

However, I can't help but wonder if there's not one or two people in the campaign floating this idea: "Hey, what if Palin comes out and says that, regretfully, she is unable to continue to serve as the VP nominee. Though her desire to serve the country remains strong, she underestimated the toll it would take on her family and her ability to raise her children, etc. etc."

I doubt that will happen either, obviously. But if I was in their position, to be honest, I'd be thinking that one through (especially with the VP debate looming).

EDIT: this idea of Palin dropping out under the pretense that the job would interfere with her familial obligations was raised by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who recently withdrew her support of Palin in light of her performance during the Couric interview

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-parker_26edi.ART.State.Edition1.271add9.html

MAYYYYYbe

but condi sent written confirmation to the senate yesterday that she participated in talks with other cabinet officers back in 2002 about what kinds of torture should be permitted with captured terrorist suspects.

it might not be the best time for her to jump into the campaign


I can't see that she's going to be less able than Palin, torture or no.

She brings two minorities (possibly), and that kind of politics looks like it's popular.


i STILL wish he would go with heather wilson (R NM). she was on TV briefly yesterday and while she isnt the prettiest girl, she knows everything about everything.

Am I really the only person who doesn't find Sarah Palin even vaguely attractive?

Anyhow - I'd much rather have a smart candidate than a pretty candidate. I guess I'm just weird like that. :)

Am I really the only person who doesn't find Sarah Palin even vaguely attractive?

Anyhow - I'd much rather have a smart candidate than a pretty candidate. I guess I'm just weird like that. :)

For me it was the accent. Any possibility of viewing her as attractive ended when she opened her mouth. What she was actually saying didn't help, either. But the accent! I used to work on a customer service line back in college, and I have been yelled at by people in that accent. It is one of the most grating, painful things to listen to.

Now Tina Fey, on the other hand...

I can't see that she's going to be less able than Palin, torture or no.

She brings two minorities (possibly), and that kind of politics looks like it's popular.

I doubt she'd really bring in minorities. She's not particularly well regarded. Better than Clarence Thomas, but that's not hard.

I doubt she'd really bring in minorities. She's not particularly well regarded. Better than Clarence Thomas, but that's not hard.

And Palin is about as destructive to women's rights as it's possible to be without actually calling for a reversal of women's suffrage, yet I've actually seen women supporting her.

Some people will follow even a token that fits their program.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

so for those of you who didn't already know...all campaign ads are false ;):p

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

so for those of you who didn't already know...all campaign ads are false ;):p

Not all, but certainly most.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

so for those of you who didn't already know...all campaign ads are false ;):p

Factcheck.org has been bad lately. Like when they say "Palin doesn't support teaching creationism", and then proceed to quote Palin saying that she supports teaching creationism.

Factcheck.org has been bad lately. Like when they say "Palin doesn't support teaching creationism", and then proceed to quote Palin saying that she supports teaching creationism.

She said two things, one which very clearly supported teaching it and the other which said it "shouldn't be part of the curriculum." The second one came more recently, which is why they're billing it as what she thinks now.

Factcheck.org has been bad lately. Like when they say "Palin doesn't support teaching creationism", and then proceed to quote Palin saying that she supports teaching creationism.

Are you talking about this from factcheck:


Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

?

Are you talking about this from factcheck:



?

Here's what Palin said first:
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.
A few days later, she amended her statement:
I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.
So it is understandable someone would have a hard time believing she's sincere, but her latest statement indicates she doesn't believe it should be taught.

Here's what Palin said first:

A few days later, she amended her statement:

So it is understandable someone would have a hard time believing she's sincere, but her latest statement indicates she doesn't believe it should be taught.

Here (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) is the full context and what she said reported contemporaneously. Especially as contrasted with the response of her opponents, Palin's answer was very disturbing.

Note, "teaching the controversy" is just the latest version of trying to get creationism in schools. Either Palin is very, very dim and ignorant, or she was deliberately endorsing an unconstitutional (and wrong) viewpoint.

Of course, McCain believes schools should be free to teach creationism as well.

Here (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) is the full context and what she said reported contemporaneously. Especially as contrasted with the response of her opponents, Palin's answer was very disturbing.

Note, "teaching the controversy" is just the latest version of trying to get creationism in schools. Either Palin is very, very dim and ignorant, or she was deliberately endorsing an unconstitutional (and wrong) viewpoint.

Of course, McCain believes schools should be free to teach creationism as well.
I don't think that's what she was saying, though. It sounded like she didn't want teachers to shut up kids who disagreed, but she didn't say the teachers should teach controversy.
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
It seems like she didn't want creationism taught, but at the same time didn't want people to think that she personally was a firm supporter of evolution.

If John McCaine is Elected which he probably won't get over Obama, he might die and if he does that incompetent moron Sara Palin will become President and I don't think anyone would want that. Now If Obama is elected he will be the first of 2 things, 1. The First Black President, and 2. The First Black President to be Assassinated. Basically this election is really about which Vice President do you want as President.However that is just my personal opinion. In Short American Politics are down the tubes like their Economy.

I don't think that's what she was saying, though. It sounded like she didn't want teachers to shut up kids who disagreed, but she didn't say the teachers should teach controversy.

It seems like she didn't want creationism taught, but at the same time didn't want people to think that she personally was a firm supporter of evolution.

Contrast her answer during the debate with that of her opponents:

• HALCRO: "I think anything that is religious-based in, in concept, you know, really should, needs to be taught in the proper channel -- philosophy, sociology. I don't think it should be taught as a science."


• KNOWLES: "... The answer is no. The reason why is we don't want politics in our science. We actually want more science in our politics. We don't want to just teach all things because it may be politically correct. We want to teach the best science there is, and there is overwhelming evidence, there's almost incontrovertible evidence that evolution is the science that, that we know. And that's what we should always teach, to never compromise on the principles just because it's politically popular."

• PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
(emphasis added)

Yes, she backed away from the statement. But it is more than fair to say she said she supported teaching creationism in schools.

I don't think that's what she was saying, though. It sounded like she didn't want teachers to shut up kids who disagreed, but she didn't say the teachers should teach controversy.

It seems like she didn't want creationism taught, but at the same time didn't want people to think that she personally was a firm supporter of evolution.
I disagree. To me it seems like she was adjusting her public comments to be more palatable, politically. I have no doubt that, personally, Palin would like to see creationism taught in science classes. The only question is whether she would support laws to make that happen. I happen to believe she would, regardless of what she says, but that part is separate from my interpretation of her comments as political waffling.

Yes, she backed away from the statement. But it is more than fair to say she said she supported teaching creationism in schools.

Still, I don't think it's enough to particularly discredit factcheck.org.

Still, I don't think it's enough to particularly discredit factcheck.org.
True. One mistake does not undermine an otherwise solid history/resume. Actually, I give them points for having so few mistakes considering the perfect storm of flip-flops, message shifts, rumors, errors, and BS this very long election season has been.

Still, I don't think it's enough to particularly discredit factcheck.org.

Although they are coy about what exactly the allegation against her is "false" and "slime," they put this under the topic of "Sliming Palin" and put the details under big bold letters saying: "No Creationism in Schools." That just isn't accurate.

It is just an example of being a bit sloppy with the factchecking. I made clear I still appreciate factcheck's contribution to the information out there. I just don't think they should be treated as gospel.

Are you talking about this from factcheck:



?

Yes. The "doesn't have to" construction is almost exclusively used to convey support.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

For those who don’t remember Bush won 286 to 252 in 2004. It’s been accused (and not supported) that the 50 state strategy is failing. Let’s analyze that claim.


State (Electoral Vote)
Obama Improvements (Positive is an improvement for Obama)

Colorado (9)
10.1

Florida (27)
3.4

Indiana (11)
18.4

Iowa (7)
10.1

Michigan (17)
3.2

Minnesota (10)
-0.7

Missouri (11)
4.0

Nevada (5)
0.9

New Hampshire (4)
0.0

New Mexico (5)
6.7

North Carolina (15)
9.2

Ohio (20)
0.9

Pennsylvania (21)
1.9

Virginia (13)
10.0

Wisconsin (10)
3.4


Those are the states that were either in play last time or are in play this time and thus have the potential to change the electoral count, by either being removed from play or being added to play. These would be the “states that count”. I counted in play as a difference of 4% or less in polling or the outcome in 2004.

This is by examining the polls together on RCP.

Now looking at the numbers, Obama has improved his position for 171 electoral votes. Obama has stayed the same for 4. And his position has gotten worse by .7% in 10. In other words, the 50 state strategy hasn’t harmed his position in any states that matter by any significant amound and has greatly improved his position in states worth almost enough electoral votes to win if he didn’t have the solid strongholds.

But, hey, this is just my opinion, so it’s not like the bulk of evidence that supports that opinion is necessary. And, hey, improving your position for 171 electoral votes that are in play versus a reduction in just 10 can't be a good strategy, can it? Or is it a tactic? Someone get John McCain on the phone.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

For those who don’t remember Bush won 286 to 252 in 2004. It’s been accused (and not supported) that the 50 state strategy is failing. Let’s analyze that claim.


State (Electoral Vote)
Obama Improvements (Positive is an improvement for Obama)

Colorado (9)
10.1

Florida (27)
3.4

Indiana (11)
18.4

Iowa (7)
10.1

Michigan (17)
3.2

Minnesota (10)
-0.7

Missouri (11)
4.0

Nevada (5)
0.9

New Hampshire (4)
0.0

New Mexico (5)
6.7

North Carolina (15)
9.2

Ohio (20)
0.9

Pennsylvania (21)
1.9

Virginia (13)
10.0

Wisconsin (10)
3.4


Those are the states that were either in play last time or are in play this time and thus have the potential to change the electoral count, by either being removed from play or being added to play. These would be the “states that count”. I counted in play as a difference of 4% or less in polling or the outcome in 2004.

This is by examining the polls together on RCP.

Now looking at the numbers, Obama has improved his position for 171 electoral votes. Obama has stayed the same for 4. And his position has gotten worse by .7% in 10. In other words, the 50 state strategy hasn’t harmed his position in any states that matter by any significant amound and has greatly improved his position in states worth almost enough electoral votes to win if he didn’t have the solid strongholds.

But, hey, this is just my opinion, so it’s not like the bulk of evidence that supports that opinion is necessary. And, hey, improving your position for 171 electoral votes that are in play versus a reduction in just 10 can't be a good strategy, can it? Or is it a tactic? Someone get John McCain on the phone.

You and your crazy numbers and facts and stuff. You want to prove something to me, you're gonna need a really solid opinion, at least.

Oh - and didn't Biden already rip McCain a new one on that, by pointing out that McCain himself was wrong about whether it was a tactic or a strategy?

Oopsy!

You and your crazy numbers and facts and stuff. You want to prove something to me, you're gonna need a really solid opinion, at least.

Or to be supporting a candidate with a vagina.

SEXISM!

An interesting comment from Saul Azunis, chairman of the Michigan GOP

Anuzis is one of the few Republican politicians who say openly that Obama's race is an inescapable factor in the election. "Racism, like sexism, is not something people admit to," he says. He notes that McCain voters typically offer diverse reasons for supporting their candidate over Obama. His conclusion: "When they have five or six reasons, it's usually for another reason they don't want to mention."

"It is one of the most taboo subjects people can talk about," Anuzis adds. "Every time I bring it up, people cringe."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803046.html

Props to Anuzis for stating the obvious.

man, i love nate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-927.html)

The only poll that really stands out is ARG's McCain +3 in Colorado. Since (i) a lot of good pollsters were in the field last week in Colorado and showed Obama with a decent-sized lead, and (ii) ARG is not a good pollster, this does not really affect our model's opinion that Colorado leans fairly strongly toward Obama.

...

i'm going to do this again, using 538's numbers, which takes pollster ratings (on the basis of past performance), pollster lean, sample size, and recentness of the polling into account. hell, we'll toss in the trend-adjustment numbers from them too.

first, the states that ch thinks mccain has put in play:

Michigan
2000 - 5.13% dem
2004 - 3.42% dem
current pollster.com average - 4.3% dem
current 538 average - 4.4% dem
538 trend adjustment - 6.0% dem

Minnesota
2000 - 2.40% dem
2004 - 3.48% dem
pollster - 3.2% dem
538 - 4.2% dem
trend - 7.5% dem

Pennsylvania
2000 - 4.17% dem
2004 - 2.50% dem
pollster - 2.5% dem
530 - 3.7% dem
trend - 5.8% dem

Wisconsin
2000 - 0.22% dem
2004 - 0.38% dem
pollster - 4.4% dem
538 - 4.8% dem
trend - 7.3% dem

now a selection of states that obama has either put in play or retaken already:

Colorado
2000 - 8.36% rep
2004 - 4.67% rep
pollster - 3.2% dem
538 - 2.9% dem
trend - 6.0% dem

Iowa
2000 - 0.31% dem
2004 - 0.67% rep
pollster - 9.8% dem
538 - 8.5% dem
trend - 10.0% dem

New Mexico
2000 - 0.06% dem
2004 - 0.79% rep
pollster - 6.2% dem
538 - 6.2% dem
trend - 8.4% dem

Virginia
2000 - 8.04% rep
2004 - 8.20% rep
pollster - 0.4% rep
538 - 0.2% dem
trend - 4.7% dem

Motherfucking North Carolina
2000 - 12.83% rep
2004 - 12.43% rep
pollster - 2.5% rep
538 - 4.9% rep
trend - 1.7% rep

It was suggested that I did not support the assertion that the 50 State strategy was failing, but I did support that here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14035649&postcount=1249).

Also, earlier in this thread, I made this point:

How is Obama doing in his campaigning in those "States that matter"?


Yup....he was in Idaho (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/states/id/)way back in Feb.

How about Nebraska (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/ne/) where he might need that 1 ECV? Oh yeah, he was there in ummmm Feb.

How about that all important State of Ohio (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/oh/)? Better, but his minimal presence, plus his flip flop on Free Trade has seen him lose support?

And yet, he has had 37 events in DC even though it only has 3 ECV and supports him like by 90% of the population.

He only has a month and a half left, and there are 50 States. Hmmm.
Now, if you have a 50 State strategy and yet you are only actively campaigning in the "battleground States" then who is kidding who?

EDIT: here check out the campaign trail of Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/).

It was suggested that I did not support the assertion that the 50 State strategy was failing, but I did support that here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14035649&postcount=1249).

Also, earlier in this thread, I made this point:


Now, if you have a 50 State strategy and yet you are only actively campaigning in the "battleground States" then who is kidding who?

You appear to be confusing the impossibility of simultaneously appearing in all 50 states with a concession of any state Obama isn't in. :p

Regardless, are you seriously arguing that Obama would be doing a better job of campaigning if he spent more time in states like Idaho?

Regardless, are you seriously arguing...?

nope

i'm going to do this again, using 538's numbers, which takes pollster ratings (on the basis of past performance), pollster lean, sample size, and recentness of the polling into account. hell, we'll toss in the trend-adjustment numbers from them too.

first, the states that ch thinks mccain has put in play:
Wasn't this the year that the Democrats needed only to send a warm body to win the White House? The fact that the Republicans are even in the ball game now, certainly seems to fly in the face of any 50 State strategy:

CBS News/New York Times Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen3.htm). Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=995 registered voters nationwide.

"If the November 2008 election for president were being held today, would you probably vote for the Republican candidate or would you probably vote for the Democratic candidate?"

Republican Candidate Democratic Candidate Other
(vol.) Depends
(vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
1/9-12/08
32 50 1 8 9
12/5-9/07
31 48 1 10 10
10/12-16/07
33 48 1 9 9
9/4-9/07
32 48 1 10 9
7/9-17/07
32 47 2 10 9
6/26-28/07
28 55 1 7 9
5/18-23/07
33 49 1 10 7
3/7-11/07
32 51 0 10 7

The smallest lead was 15 points and the largest lead was a whopping 27 points and that was back in June of last year.

I dont know who caught the debates, but is it just me or could McCain's entire arguement be summed up by:

"You young whisper snappers just dont understand. You'll understand when youre older, now get the hell off my lawn!"

Wasn't this the year that the Democrats needed only to send a warm body to win the White House? The fact that the Republicans are even in the ball game now, certainly seems to fly in the face of any 50 State strategy:

CBS News/New York Times Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen3.htm). Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=995 registered voters nationwide.

"If the November 2008 election for president were being held today, would you probably vote for the Republican candidate or would you probably vote for the Democratic candidate?"

Republican Candidate Democratic Candidate Other
(vol.) Depends
(vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
1/9-12/08
32 50 1 8 9
12/5-9/07
31 48 1 10 10
10/12-16/07
33 48 1 9 9
9/4-9/07
32 48 1 10 9
7/9-17/07
32 47 2 10 9
6/26-28/07
28 55 1 7 9
5/18-23/07
33 49 1 10 7
3/7-11/07
32 51 0 10 7

The smallest lead was 15 points and the largest lead was a whopping 27 points and that was back in June of last year.

um, if i read your formatting right, those numbers look almost exactly like the current numbers once you take the early undecideds out of the picture and realize that we were bound to lose some racists.

and you still don't know what the 50 state strategy is. at all. in the slightest. i don't really expect you too, what with being a republican hack and all, but it would be nice if you would at least shut up about it and stop embarrassing yourself.

so, any comment on the fact that obama is doing noticeably better than gore and kerry?

Wasn't this the year that the Democrats needed only to send a warm body to win the White House? The fact that the Republicans are even in the ball game now, certainly seems to fly in the face of any 50 State strategy:

CBS News/New York Times Poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen3.htm). Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=995 registered voters nationwide.

"If the November 2008 election for president were being held today, would you probably vote for the Republican candidate or would you probably vote for the Democratic candidate?"

Republican Candidate Democratic Candidate Other
(vol.) Depends
(vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
1/9-12/08
32 50 1 8 9
12/5-9/07
31 48 1 10 10
10/12-16/07
33 48 1 9 9
9/4-9/07
32 48 1 10 9
7/9-17/07
32 47 2 10 9
6/26-28/07
28 55 1 7 9
5/18-23/07
33 49 1 10 7
3/7-11/07
32 51 0 10 7

The smallest lead was 15 points and the largest lead was a whopping 27 points and that was back in June of last year.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard;_ylt=Aq5tzPrBl1jG.qQNe2IJCp7Cw5R4
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Three websites all putting Obama in the lead. You even cited the first one a few times to try and credit your arguments, so you KNOW the first one is good.

It seems your "Obama is failing, McBush will win! Victory for Canada!" argument is failing, quite dramatically.

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


Gallup has Rambo down by 5.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/27/MNFI137D87.DTL

In the run-up to the year's first presidential debate, McCain shocked the political world by saying he was suspending his campaign to work out a deal on the emergency financial bailout in Washington, and issuing an off-again, on-again vow not to debate until a plan was delivered.

But after sparring with Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Mississippi, the Arizona senator didn't personally plunge back into the negotiations on Saturday. He stayed in his Virginia condo for most of the day and visited his nearby campaign headquarters. McCain chief adviser Mark Salter said the candidate "can effectively do what he needs to by phone." McCain called President Bush and Republican leaders to discuss the $700 billion proposal to stabilize the economy.


Epic. Fucking. Lawlz.

"Then at the debate he went back to experience, and tried to portray Obama as uninformed - but Obama was looking anything but naïve," Newman said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/mccain-says-obama-is-not-dealing-with-financial-crisis/

Senator John McCain said on Saturday night that he thought his debate with Senator Barack Obama in Mississippi went “quite well,’’ and then accused Mr. Obama of doing nothing about the Wall Street financial crisis except using it for political gain.

“It was clear that Senator Obama still sees the financial crisis in America as a national problem to be exploited first and solved later,’’ Mr. McCain told the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance in Columbus, Ohio, in remarks delivered live by satellite from his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va.


:rolleyes: Oh boy.

Wasn't this the year that the Democrats needed only to send a warm body to win the White House?

It was?

Someone should have at least emailed the other parties. Those dummies all got dressed and everything.

Boy will their faces be red.


Or, of course, not - because this is real life, not some fantasy world where stupid shit happens just because someone says so.

It was suggested...

A 50 state strategy doesn't necessarily mean Obama has to even set foot in 50 states, although he's been doing pretty good at bouncing around the map.

What's the point you're actually trying to make?

um, if i read your formatting right, those numbers look almost exactly like the current numbers once you take the early undecideds out of the picture and realize that we were bound to lose some racists.
The current numbers? If that were the case, then it would appear that most of the undecideds and "depends" went to McCain.

and you still don't know what the 50 state strategy is. at all. in the slightest. i don't really expect you too, what with being a republican hack and all, but it would be nice if you would at least shut up about it and stop embarrassing yourself.
I understand the 50 State strategy and I admit that it is good to have some kind of strategy. However, usually dollars are finite resources and if you burn them in the wrong place trying to build a future base, instead of fortifying the base, then you run the gamut of losing at the very moment that you need to win. The fact that Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even PA are even on the Republican radar, should be of concern to the Dems.

Sure, there are many red States in play this time, but can that fact be attributed to the 50 State strategy or the fact that the Republicans have been in power for 8 years and the political winds are changing?

so, any comment on the fact that obama is doing noticeably better than gore and kerry?
A lot of that is by default?

Epic. Fucking. Lawlz.


:rolleyes: Oh boy.

That's putting it mildly. "He can do what he needs to do by phone" -- but rode in trying to be Senator White Knight, and then tried to cast Obama as the one making hay off the financial collapse?

That's past laughing and right on into "what the fuck are you ON?!?" How are even SUPPORTERS of this man seeing stuff like this and thinking that McCain has even a smidgen of his former integrity?

That's past laughing and right on into "what the fuck are you ON?!?" How are even SUPPORTERS of this man seeing stuff like this and thinking that McCain has even a smidgen of his former integrity?

I really dont think any of them do any more. I think a lot of them are now in the "Lets keep the evil black muslim commie out of office, and who cares we put in!" mode.

but can that fact be attributed to the 50 State strategy...?

Yes.

So this is the game now? Exaggerate expectations and then complain that he's not winning by enough? That's just sad...

The fact that Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even PA are even on the Republican radar, should be of concern to the Dems.

So, blue states that are in play are because Obama fucked up, but red states that are in play are because that's the way it was supposed to be? Does Obama get no credit for all the previously red states that are now toss ups?

So this is the game now? Exaggerate expectations and then complain that he's not winning by enough? That's just sad...

Don't worry. I have a feeling that CH is doing his best to purge any jinx from the atmosphere by playing Repubs' Advocate. If he's at all superstitious, he feels that rooting for Gore and Kerry might have cost them the election, so he's doing his part to ensure a Demo victory by railing against it.

Well done, CH, well done. Keep it up.

My thoughts. This election is going to be anti-climatic, in that no matter which party wins the election, the President is going to be a lame duck, and moreso for McCain if he should win.

With the recent meltdown of the financial markets, any bailout is going to leave either candidate with an empty goody bag. McCain would not only have an empty goody bag, but he would also be saddled with a Democratic House and Senate.

Since there is going to be a lame duck President for the next 4 years, that might as well be Nader. That will give the Dems and Republicans 4 years to rebuild their parties.

My thoughts. This election is going to be anti-climatic, in that no matter which party wins the election, the President is going to be a lame duck, and moreso for McCain if he should win.

With the recent meltdown of the financial markets, any bailout is going to leave either candidate with an empty goody bag. McCain would not only have an empty goody bag, but he would also be saddled with a Democratic House and Senate.

Since there is going to be a lame duck President for the next 4 years, that might as well be Nader. That will give the Dems and Republicans 4 years to rebuild their parties.

Atta boy.

So, blue states that are in play are because Obama fucked up, but red states that are in play are because that's the way it was supposed to be? Does Obama get no credit for all the previously red states that are now toss ups?

Obama's black, blacks deserve no credit, only women would deserve any if Hillary hadn't been routed by her own incompetence, wash, rinse, repeat...

(Sarcasm...)

Don't worry. I have a feeling that CH is doing his best to purge any jinx from the atmosphere by playing Repubs' Advocate. If he's at all superstitious, he feels that rooting for Gore and Kerry might have cost them the election, so he's doing his part to ensure a Demo victory by railing against it.

Well done, CH, well done. Keep it up.
That thought did cross my mind. :D

Like when a president took over after a massive savings and loan scandal and a spiraling recession-then two years in faced an opposition party congress...that guy's presidency was totally lame duck...oh wait...


Nice touch, though, with the "I didn't want the presidency, anyway" sour grapes routine.

My thoughts. This election is going to be anti-climatic, in that no matter which party wins the election, the President is going to be a lame duck, and moreso for McCain if he should win.

With the recent meltdown of the financial markets, any bailout is going to leave either candidate with an empty goody bag. McCain would not only have an empty goody bag, but he would also be saddled with a Democratic House and Senate.

Since there is going to be a lame duck President for the next 4 years, that might as well be Nader. That will give the Dems and Republicans 4 years to rebuild their parties.

But it's not going to be Nader. It'll be either a continuation of the Bush regime, or McCain will die in office and it'll be Bush-in-drag, or there'll be at least a BIT of a change for the next four years.

The economic crisis seals it - McCain can't be allowed to win. His entire bulk of response to economic crisis can be boiled down to two words - 'cut spending', and one condition - 'except on war'.

Which means no investment, no manufacture, no bringing jobs back home, and no end to pissing money into the sand.

Yes - if Obama wins, he's coming into office pre-screwed. But, like the saying goes, you DO change horses midstream, if your current horse IS DROWNING.

The current numbers? If that were the case, then it would appear that most of the undecideds and "depends" went to McCain.

and subtract out a bunch of racists and southerners in particular and more generally that for whatever reason still identify as democrats but always vote republican in federal races. generic dem always blows generic republican out of the water nationally - even when particular republican wins.

The fact that Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even PA are even on the Republican radar, should be of concern to the Dems.

and not a single one of them is significantly more in play for mccain than they were for bush in the last two elections. many of them, as i just fucking showed you, are significantly less in play than they were.

but perhaps i have assumed too much. maybe you don't understand how voting preferences work. they are demographic facts and are more or less stable throughout peoples lives (and for those who aren't so stable, they largely just don't pay any attention and haven't actually even formed real political ideals of their own). and the thing about demographics is that they do not often shift radically.

george motherfucking w still has the support of 30% of the population, and he has been an unmitigated disaster. mondale pulled over 40% against reagan at the height of his popularity while losing every single state besides dc and minnesota.

but while demographics don't shift radically, they do shift and that can be used to your advantage. and since getting people when they are young is vital to keeping them forever, and since local and state politics is where you build a bench of party leaders and activists for the future, and since investing effort in organizing and a ground game really does matter in getting shit done, a strategy based around doing all of those things seems to be inherently better than one that writes off entire regions in a self-fulfilling prophecy of loserdom.

Sure, there are many red States in play this time, but can that fact be attributed to the 50 State strategy or the fact that the Republicans have been in power for 8 years and the political winds are changing?

which explains why after two terms of clinton, illinois, california, and new york all went for the republicans in the next two elections. oh wait, they didn't. on the other hand, the only times virginia, for example, was even close to being in play for the dems recently involved some combination of southern governors and ross perot. but they haven't won it since lbj's 1964 landslide. 538's model currently projects an 82% chance of obama taking it. your hypothesis is flat out wrong and fundamentally cannot account for this. i can.

george motherfucking w still has the support of 30% of the population, and he has been an unmitigated disaster.
And you need to add in another 4-6% who ain't supporting him cause they think he shd've nuked eeee-RAN by now.
That's 36% right there who will vote for anything GOP throws up as a candidate. Even an aging, increasingly senile-seeming incompetent with a ditzy airhead assistant.

and not a single one of them is significantly more in play for mccain than they were for bush in the last two elections. many of them, as i just fucking showed you, are significantly less in play than they were.
The fact that they are even in play is amazing.

but perhaps i have assumed too much. maybe you don't understand how voting preferences work. they are demographic facts and are more or less stable throughout peoples lives (and for those who aren't so stable, they largely just don't pay any attention and haven't actually even formed real political ideals of their own). and the thing about demographics is that they do not often shift radically.
Then there are Red States and Blue States afterall?

george motherfucking w still has the support of 30% of the population, and he has been an unmitigated disaster. mondale pulled over 40% against reagan at the height of his popularity while losing every single state besides dc and minnesota.
Amazing!!

but while demographics don't shift radically, they do shift and that can be used to your advantage. and since getting people when they are young is vital to keeping them forever, and since local and state politics is where you build a bench of party leaders and activists for the future, and since investing effort in organizing and a ground game really does matter in getting shit done, a strategy based around doing all of those things seems to be inherently better than one that writes off entire regions in a self-fulfilling prophecy of loserdom.
I understand all of that. The same thing happens here in Canada. In 1984, the Conservatives energized a great many young Canadians, and the result was a massive majority for the Conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1984).

The enthusiasm disapated slightly in 1988, but the Conservatives still won a majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1988).

Then the wheels fell off and the enthusiasm died and as a result, the Conservatives were almost wiped off the map in 1993, winning only 2 seats.

Not only were the grassroots uprooted, Canadians ended up with two new divisive parties (Reform & Bloc Quebecquois).

It took 13 years before the Conservatives could finally gain a minority government in 2006, and only that could be achieved by re-uniting part of the splinter groups (Conservatives & Reform).

So, the message is that you can build up all you like but maintaining the enthusiasm over a long period of time is a very difficult chore to accomplish.

which explains why after two terms of clinton, illinois, california, and new york all went for the republicans in the next two elections. oh wait, they didn't. on the other hand, the only times virginia, for example, was even close to being in play for the dems recently involved some combination of southern governors and ross perot. but they haven't won it since lbj's 1964 landslide. 538's model currently projects an 82% chance of obama taking it. your hypothesis is flat out wrong and fundamentally cannot account for this. i can.
And said model is subject to change on a daily basis?

As far as Virginia is concerned, it was the lowest plurality that Bush had among the Southern States in 2004 (8.2%). Kerry garnered 87% of the black votes and Bush got 12%. If Obama scores 95+% of the black vote then suddenly, Virginia is in play? Demographics might play the largest part of any flip.

The fact that they are even in play is amazing.

only in the sense that it is amazing that republicans get more than 5 votes total in any election ever. once you come to terms with the existence of the crazy, the lazy, the ignorant, and the evil, it isn't really surprising.

Then there are Red States and Blue States afterall?

nope. that is fundamentally the wrong level to look at. wyoming has a democratic governor. mississippi has a majority of dems in its house delegation. even effectively one party states like idaho and utah have democratic areas that properly-cared-for state parties could consolidate and expand on.
this stuff would be obvious if you
a) knew something about american politics, and
b) knew what the 50 state strategy was

This is fun: a global poll for people to vote in the US election, but done according to electoral college rules with countries as states. Granted, there is a certain bias in who will take this poll, given that it will primarily be readers of The Economist (which in many countries will mean the business elite), but no matter.

http://www.economist.com/vote2008

Surprise, surprise, McCain is in trouble.

Surprise, surprise, McCain is in trouble.

except in el salvador

McCain is indeed in trouble.

He's not only 9 points behind, even on a FOX news poll,(of all places), not to mention ABC News, and the Washington Post) but his poor choice of a running mate stumbled her way through a interview with Katie Couric, making herself look rather foolish.
Add to that, the "Late Night with David Letterman" fiasco.

Couple that, with a clear defeat at the hands of Obama, in the first debate.
To spice things nicely, add First Lady Laura Bush's comment about Palin "lacking foreign policy experience".

More and more every day for the last week, we're seeing McCains campaign starting to unravel. Slowly but surely, the poor choice of leadership that is John McCain, is showing its true colors.





The Palin FAIL interview.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/the_palin_interview_1.cfm

Now, keep in mind the Vice Presidential Debate is days away.
If you think McCain was soundly beaten, just wait for the slaughtering that Biden will deliver to his opponent.
Remember, this is Bidens arena, and Palin is a complete "N00B" to this level of the game.
If she cant handle a simple interview with Katie Couric, how will she handle a debate, against a seasoned veteran of the political stage?

If Biden goes even remotely for the throat, as he damn well ought to, I for one, think Palin is thoroughly toast.
Remember, she still believes God created earth 6000 years ago, and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man.

Charging rape victims for thier rape kits, anyone?
Bridge to nowhere?
OH, and dont forget about once belonging to a political group that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union.
Complete lack of experience in national politics?

Shes already lost this one.

Its looking very grim already for the McSAME campaign already, and we havent even discussed the issue of black voter turnout, wich have registered to vote in RECORD numbers.
Remember how close the last election was?
Now, add to the blue side, millions of voters who werent registered before.

Finally, look at McCains open adherence, and staunch support for what may be the most unpopular war in American history, and his ties to the most unpopular (and probably worst) president ever.
That means he will likely not pull in as much of the RED state voters as well.

Its not time to get cocky just yet, but it has to look pretty good to the Obama team right now.

As far as Virginia is concerned, it was the lowest plurality that Bush had among the Southern States in 2004 (8.2%). Kerry garnered 87% of the black votes and Bush got 12%. If Obama scores 95+% of the black vote then suddenly, Virginia is in play? Demographics might play the largest part of any flip.
Your above statement, if indicative of your understanding of statistics, shows you shd really stay out of making any further comments or interpretations of polling stats.
Where to start? Your statement is totally wrong on so many counts. For one thing, Obama garnering 8% more of the Black vote as Kerry doesn't mean 8% swing to him, but 16%. The vote break has gone from 87-12: 75% for Dems to 95-5: 90% for Dems. The difference is a 16.7% improvement.

Further Obama getting another 8% of the Black vote would only wipe clear the GOP lead if, in Virginia:
1. Everyone, of all races, voted in the exact same proportion (ie. 60% of Blacks vote, 60% of Hispanics, 60% of Whites etc etc);
2. At least 50% of the Virginian voting population were Black: Then a 16% shift in the Black vote would equate to an 8% shift overall;
3. Everyone else, from ever other ethnicity and religion votes exactly the same as they did the 2004 election. eg. In Virginia 2004, the Catholic vote went to GWB 63:37. With Biden a Catholic, that presumably going to be much closer this time round.

fyi, 70% of Virginia is White, 20% is Black, 5% is Asian and 5% is Hispanic. Assuming a similar turnout (which is a big assume there), a 95% Black vote for Obama would mean just 3% swing overall. Kerry lost by 9% (54:45 to GWB in 2004); now Obama is leading by 6% (51:45), a 15% swing: Thus we can conclude that it's not just down to the Black vote.

As I said, you really shd stay well away from commenting on stats. It's obviously not your forte.

It was suggested that I did not support the assertion that the 50 State strategy was failing, but I did support that here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14035649&postcount=1249).

Also, earlier in this thread, I made this point:


Now, if you have a 50 State strategy and yet you are only actively campaigning in the "battleground States" then who is kidding who?

EDIT: here check out the campaign trail of Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/).

You don't really know how Obama's strategy works, do you? He's not relying on himself. That's why he's winning. I know how that might be confusing, but usually when people don't know what they're talking about, they realize it's best to stop talking.

I love that your entire argument requires us to ignore the real numbers and the improvements since 2004 and instead rely on some line you made up about how Dems should have a walk this cycle. They should have had a walk in 2004, too. Bush was just as bad a President and Dems were in just a good a position. Incidentally, you were backing their candidate then, another candidate who should have had a walk. How'd he do?

Your above statement, if indicative of your understanding of statistics, shows you shd really stay out of making any further comments or interpretations of polling stats.
Where to start? Your statement is totally wrong on so many counts. For one thing, Obama garnering 8% more of the Black vote as Kerry doesn't mean 8% swing to him, but 16%. The vote break has gone from 87-12: 75% for Dems to 95-5: 90% for Dems. The difference is a 16.7% improvement.

Further Obama getting another 8% of the Black vote would only wipe clear the GOP lead if, in Virginia:
1. Everyone, of all races, voted in the exact same proportion (ie. 60% of Blacks vote, 60% of Hispanics, 60% of Whites etc etc);
2. At least 50% of the Virginian voting population were Black: Then a 16% shift in the Black vote would equate to an 8% shift overall;
3. Everyone else, from ever other ethnicity and religion votes exactly the same as they did the 2004 election. eg. In Virginia 2004, the Catholic vote went to GWB 63:37. With Biden a Catholic, that presumably going to be much closer this time round.

fyi, 70% of Virginia is White, 20% is Black, 5% is Asian and 5% is Hispanic. Assuming a similar turnout (which is a big assume there), a 95% Black vote for Obama would mean just 3% swing overall. Kerry lost by 9% (54:45 to GWB in 2004); now Obama is leading by 6% (51:45), a 15% swing: Thus we can conclude that it's not just down to the Black vote.

As I said, you really shd stay well away from commenting on stats. It's obviously not your forte.

Why would that stop him? The 50 state strategy, picking a winner and understanding American politics clearly isn't his forte based on past evidence, but that doesn't stop him. In fact, with him now defending McCain and claiming to be in touch with his inner conservative, one wonders what IS his forte or rather, other than being pissed that Obama won, one wonders what his point is.

Hell, we heard about how Dems dug their own grave by being unwilliing to give Hillary a shot in an election that's about popularity. She wasn't even the most popular candidate in her own party. Why would they give her a shot? That's what happened in 2004. They picked a guy no one was really all that excited about because they thought he was best positioned to win (the exact argument CH made for Clinton). It turns out you actually want to elect a guy who gets people amped up and excited about the prospect of their presidency. Who knew? (Answer: everyone who understands American politics at all.)

haha, salon does some detective work (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/26/trade_missions/index.html):


Palin's mysterious trade missions

As John McCain reminds us, "Russia is right next to Alaska; Sarah Palin understands that." But when pressed by Katie Couric about what, exactly, that understanding lent her in the way of foreign policy savvy, the Republicans' vice-presidential nominee couldn't come up with a lot of specifics...

As you might notice, Palin only cites one discernible foreign interaction under her purview: Trade missions.

I spent some time on the Governor's Web site seeking more details about her trade negotiations with Russia. There's a press release about Gov. Palin's meeting with a trade mission from the Yukon, but nothing about Russia anywhere in the archives. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who was governor from 1994-2002, led a trade mission -- back in 1997, while Palin was running Wasilla -- to the remote island of Sakhalin, off the coast of Siberia. That seems to be about it for Russia-Alaska trade missions lately.

When asked for examples of trade missions with Russia that have taken place under Palin's watch, gubernatorial spokeswoman Kate Morgan refused to answer the question. Morgan said she could not legally discuss any trade missions with me because she's a state employee and I had first heard this claim through the Couric interview, which was part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency. When I pointed out that any trade missions that occurred would have been official state business, Morgan again noted that I had learned about them in the context of the campaign. "The law is very stringent," she said, and recommended that I contact the McCain-Palin campaign. Two spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.

yeah, the state of alaska can't comment on whether there were in fact any trade missions because the claim was heard in the context of a campaign. right...
so i guess palin's trade-based foreign policy with russia is of the "well, we could have had some, if we had been so inclined" type.

McCain is indeed in trouble.

He's not only 9 points behind, even on a FOX news poll,(of all places), not to mention ABC News, and the Washington Post) but his poor choice of a running mate stumbled her way through a interview with Katie Couric, making herself look rather foolish.
Add to that, the "Late Night with David Letterman" fiasco.

Couple that, with a clear defeat at the hands of Obama, in the first debate.
To spice things nicely, add First Lady Laura Bush's comment about Palin "lacking foreign policy experience".

More and more every day for the last week, we're seeing McCains campaign starting to unravel. Slowly but surely, the poor choice of leadership that is John McCain, is showing its true colors.





The Palin FAIL interview.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/the_palin_interview_1.cfm

Now, keep in mind the Vice Presidential Debate is days away.
If you think McCain was soundly beaten, just wait for the slaughtering that Biden will deliver to his opponent.
Remember, this is Bidens arena, and Palin is a complete "N00B" to this level of the game.
If she cant handle a simple interview with Katie Couric, how will she handle a debate, against a seasoned veteran of the political stage?

If Biden goes even remotely for the throat, as he damn well ought to, I for one, think Palin is thoroughly toast.
Remember, she still believes God created earth 6000 years ago, and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man.

Charging rape victims for thier rape kits, anyone?
Bridge to nowhere?
OH, and dont forget about once belonging to a political group that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union.
Complete lack of experience in national politics?

Shes already lost this one.

Its looking very grim already for the McSAME campaign already, and we havent even discussed the issue of black voter turnout, wich have registered to vote in RECORD numbers.
Remember how close the last election was?
Now, add to the blue side, millions of voters who werent registered before.

Finally, look at McCains open adherence, and staunch support for what may be the most unpopular war in American history, and his ties to the most unpopular (and probably worst) president ever.
That means he will likely not pull in as much of the RED state voters as well.

Its not time to get cocky just yet, but it has to look pretty good to the Obama team right now.

And yet here you are, getting cocky. Maybe it's my 30 years as a Seattle sports fan, but I am always wary of any lead until it becomes an actual win. I remember thinking that there was no way Gore could lose in 2000 (and no, I don't want to take this thread into a Greg-Palast-ian re-hash of the actual election finale in Florida), and we've all seen what happened there. A political machine that lusts for power will stop at nothing, and this nation is full of enough people who look no further than headlines and people who vote on appearances. When I see the final returns after 4 November 2008, I'll relax.

And yet here you are, getting cocky. Maybe it's my 30 years as a Seattle sports fan, but I am always wary of any lead until it becomes an actual win. I remember thinking that there was no way Gore could lose in 2000 (and no, I don't want to take this thread into a Greg-Palast-ian re-hash of the actual election finale in Florida), and we've all seen what happened there. A political machine that lusts for power will stop at nothing, and this nation is full of enough people who look no further than headlines and people who vote on appearances. When I see the final returns after 4 November 2008, I'll relax.

Hopefully, anyway.

The more I see of Palin, the more I see someone akin to Christine Todd Whitman (W's EPA head, 2001-2003). She shouldn't be VP. She should have been tapped for EPA or Interior as someone who comes from a nominally environmental state. She'd have that perfect GOP resume of state with natural beauty + governor who knew how to despoil it while still appearing to care for it. But she's got that look of someone who's trying to cover deer-in-headlights with a patina of decisive confidence.

haha, salon does some detective work (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/26/trade_missions/index.html):



yeah, the state of alaska can't comment on whether there were in fact any trade missions because the claim was heard in the context of a campaign. right...
so i guess palin's trade-based foreign policy with russia is of the "well, we could have had some, if we had been so inclined" type.
oh thanks for posting that. i wondered it if it were true or not as soon as palin said it.

and it made me laugh. she couldnt talk about it because the guy was checking up on a campaign interview.

oh thanks for posting that. i wondered it if it were true or not as soon as palin said it.

and it made me laugh. she couldnt talk about it because the guy was checking up on a campaign interview.
If the salon.com guy wanted to do extra-credit work and make some begging phone calls, I bet the Russians (via their consulate, maybe) could confirm yea or nay on whether there were trade missions to/from Alaska. Who knows, they might even want to be cooperative and answer such a question, just for the shits and giggles.

If the salon.com guy wanted to do extra-credit work and make some begging phone calls, I bet the Russians (via their consulate, maybe) could confirm yea or nay on whether there were trade missions to/from Alaska. Who knows, they might even want to be cooperative and answer such a question, just for the shits and giggles.
it certainly isnt out of the question that they took place. i know that our governor has gone on trade missions and has received trade missions in new mexico. of course he has been governor longer than she has so he has had more time to get that kind of thing done.

but i dont believe anything she says without independant verification.

You don't really know how Obama's strategy works, do you? He's not relying on himself. That's why he's winning. I know how that might be confusing, but usually when people don't know what they're talking about, they realize it's best to stop talking.

I love that your entire argument requires us to ignore the real numbers and the improvements since 2004 and instead rely on some line you made up about how Dems should have a walk this cycle. They should have had a walk in 2004, too. Bush was just as bad a President and Dems were in just a good a position. Incidentally, you were backing their candidate then, another candidate who should have had a walk. How'd he do?

I think CH forgets that rationally, yes, the dems shoulda just waltzed into the White House. But he keeps removing the most important variable that makes such a situation not likely: The American People.

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

Muwhahaha.

um, if i read your formatting right, those numbers look almost exactly like the current numbers once you take the early undecideds out of the picture and realize that we were bound to lose some racists.

and you still don't know what the 50 state strategy is. at all. in the slightest. i don't really expect you too, what with being a republican hack and all, but it would be nice if you would at least shut up about it and stop embarrassing yourself.

so, any comment on the fact that obama is doing noticeably better than gore and kerry?

Who won the debate? Ok, so all the initial numbers from the debate went to Obama. Now this:

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better. Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems. More than six in 10 people or 63% in the one-day poll, taken Saturday, said they watched the first faceoff in Oxford, Miss. For those 701 people,...

The current numbers? If that were the case, then it would appear that most of the undecideds and "depends" went to McCain.


I understand the 50 State strategy and I admit that it is good to have some kind of strategy. However, usually dollars are finite resources and if you burn them in the wrong place trying to build a future base, instead of fortifying the base, then you run the gamut of losing at the very moment that you need to win. The fact that Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even PA are even on the Republican radar, should be of concern to the Dems.

Sure, there are many red States in play this time, but can that fact be attributed to the 50 State strategy or the fact that the Republicans have been in power for 8 years and the political winds are changing?


A lot of that is by default?

buzzzzzzzz, wrong

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5902766&page=1

*sits around with her bowl of pop corn and soda to watch hilarity ensue*

*sits around with her bowl of pop corn and soda to watch hilarity ensue*

Please. This thread's been nothing but hilarity since day 1.

Please. This thread's been nothing but hilarity since day 1.

Of that, I am a 100% sure. :D Anything of this kind always is, but since I´m not American, I will only sit and laugh a bit.;)

Of that, I am a 100% sure. :D Anything of this kind always is, but since I´m not American, I will only sit and laugh a bit.;)

Is it ok if I laugh at the next Spanish election?;)

Is it ok if I laugh at the next Spanish election?;)

But of course! Politics are a laughing matter when you come right down to it. And elections, mate, those are true pissing matches worthy of a few laughs, by the local and international community.;)

*sits around with her bowl of pop corn and soda to watch hilarity ensue*

Eeew? That'd make it all soggy... :(

Eeew? That'd make it all soggy... :(

Not mixed, of course. *huffs and turns away*

Your above statement, if indicative of your understanding of statistics, shows you shd really stay out of making any further comments or interpretations of polling stats.
Where to start? Your statement is totally wrong on so many counts. For one thing, Obama garnering 8% more of the Black vote as Kerry doesn't mean 8% swing to him, but 16%. The vote break has gone from 87-12: 75% for Dems to 95-5: 90% for Dems. The difference is a 16.7% improvement.
Perhaps your problem is reading comprehension? I stated quite clearly that:

If Obama scores 95+% of the black vote then suddenly, Virginia is in play? Demographics might play the largest part of any flip.
I certainly did not equate an 8% increase in black vote to an overall 8% increase in total votes for Obama. I merely indicated that such a black voter turnout for Obama is plausible and yeah, that would suddenly put Virginia into play.

Instead of winning Virginia by 8.2%, Bush would have won by 5%. In polling, zero to 5% difference = tossup, or as they say, "in play".

Nice try though. :rolleyes:

BTW, I briefly looked at your other scenario, and it appears that some numbers are out of whack. If I get a chance, I will go through them later.

I certainly did not equate an 8% increase in black vote to an overall 8% increase in total votes for Obama. I merely indicated that such a black voter turnout for Obama is plausible and yeah, that would suddenly put Virginia into play.

Instead of winning Virginia by 8.2%, Bush would have won by 5%. In polling, zero to 5% difference = tossup, or as they say, "in play".

of course, obama hasn't just drawn close, but is actually ahead. probably by as much as 4-5%, even. you'll need a bit more than just consolidating african american votes to explain that one. and you'll still need to explain how any of this is "by default", which was your original claim.

Ah, the sound of goalposts moving.

Just found this.

Is McCain a liar? Let's let him answer that question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1

Just found this.

Is McCain a liar? Let's let him answer that question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1
there is no hiding from the internet!

Hahah, nicely done.

there is no hiding from the internet!

I loved the bit about supporting tax cuts. No, opposing tax cuts. No supporting them. I support cutting them. I always supported cutting them.

*needs a hit-head-on-wall-smiley*

i liked it all. its so cool that someone can string together all these words out of his mouth to show the truth.

it changes everything about how much bullshit can be slung in the internet age.

Just found this.

Is McCain a liar? Let's let him answer that question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1

That's a thing of beauty. I'm emailing it to some people right now.

Just found this.

Is McCain a liar? Let's let him answer that question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1

That is brilliant. :D

Ah, the sound of goalposts moving.
you heard it as well? I thought I was the only one.
Forsooth, but CH must have those things on motorised caterpillar tracks!

Of that, I am a 100% sure. :D Anything of this kind always is, but since I´m not American, I will only sit and laugh a bit.;)

Nanatsu, you're staying then? :)

you heard it as well? I thought I was the only one.
Forsooth, but CH must have those things on motorised caterpillar tracks!
BTW I asked you earlier as to your previous Nation State name that I might recognize and you still haven't replied.

Nanatsu, you're staying then? :)

Oh yes, I am. I must. You see, I already signed my contract and payed my landlord, The Brevious. It´s only fitting that I stay. Besides, rents are so high these days. TB is affordable, comfy and close to everything.:tongue:

Oh yes, I am. I must. You see, I already signed my contract and payed my landlord, The Brevious. It´s only fitting that I stay. Besides, rents are so high these days. TB is affordable, comfy and close to everything.:tongue:

You know what I meant, are you staying on NSG?

Just found this.

Is McCain a liar? Let's let him answer that question...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&NR=1

Boohahahaha. That was hilarious.

I would say vote Libertarian. I believe Bob Barr the Libertarian Candidate for President has a great platform centered of protecting American Liberties, Civil Rights, and emphasizes fiscal responsibility and non-intervention approach to foreign policy.

I believe because of this he it the best suited candidate for President and invite any interested people to find out more about Bob Barr at his website www.barr08.com

Now, to be fair, let's see someone do one for Obama. I mean, the guy can't be Honest Abe, right?

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

The problem lies in the Bush Doctrine which is very complex:
1) Don't listen to any subject matter experts on any policy.
2) Use fear and uncertainty to the utmost advantage.
3) Dodge real issues like Iraq with gay marriage and abortion.
4) Take advice from Rummy and Cheney
5) Double America's Debt in 8 years.
6) Alienate our nation from the rest of the world.
7) Never accept that you made a wrong decision EVER!
8) Despite going to one of the most prestigious schools in the world, sound like a total dumb ass 90% of the time when you speak.

See with the Bush Doctrine you cannot allow evil Flip Flopper.

I never liked Kerry but the smear campaigns against him were totally wrong.

Now, to be fair, let's see someone do one for Obama. I mean, the guy can't be Honest Abe, right?

Obama pushed federal spending for two companies who executives contributed to him campaign. He also purchased a fair amount of stock in both companies prior to pushing for federal spending in the companies. Though Obama denies knowing he purchased the stock till later that year.

I believe that their was also so type of scandal while he was an Illinos Senator about receiving money from a lobbiest of something but I am not sure of any details on that.

Well, Biden said that after the market crash of 1929, President Roosevelt went on TV and didn't blame the "princes of greed" but said "here's what happened".

For those of you who think that statement is fine, A) TV hadn't been available for widespread public consumption until the 50s, and B) FDR wasn't elected until 1932.

I suppose the choice between Caribou Barbie and a chronic toe-muncher as VP, I'll go with the idiot who's had his passport longer. Why, oh why has it come to this?

Obama pushed federal spending for two companies who executives contributed to him campaign. He also purchased a fair amount of stock in both companies prior to pushing for federal spending in the companies. Though Obama denies knowing he purchased the stock till later that year.

I believe that their was also so type of scandal while he was an Illinos Senator about receiving money from a lobbiest of something but I am not sure of any details on that.

Links, please.

I would say vote Libertarian. I believe Bob Barr the Libertarian Candidate for President has a great platform centered of protecting American Liberties, Civil Rights, and emphasizes fiscal responsibility and non-intervention approach to foreign policy.

I believe because of this he it the best suited candidate for President and invite any interested people to find out more about Bob Barr at his website www.barr08.com

I believe you will find that if you investigate a little further into Bob Barr you will find he is essentially a repainted Republican--like most Libertarians--and actually does not stand for protecting civil rights. Wanting to remove power from the federal government but give it to the state government does not protect rights. It just moves the rights remover a little closer to home.

Well, Biden said that after the market crash of 1929, President Roosevelt went on TV and didn't blame the "princes of greed" but said "here's what happened".

For those of you who think that statement is fine, A) TV hadn't been available for widespread public consumption until the 50s, and B) FDR wasn't elected until 1932.

I suppose the choice between Caribou Barbie and a chronic toe-muncher as VP, I'll go with the idiot who's had his passport longer. Why, oh why has it come to this?
Well, yeah, Biden goofed majorly on that one, but we already knew about that. (And I was really asking for Obama anyway, since it was McCain in the video. Palin...we just need to listen to her for five minutes to hear contradictions.)

Patrick: As Cat said: evidence, please.

Well, yeah, Biden goofed majorly on that one, but we already knew about that. (And I was really asking for Obama anyway, since it was McCain in the video. Palin...we just need to listen to her for five minutes to hear contradictions.)

Patrick: As Cat said: evidence, please.

Just looking out for those who clamor for equal treatment when both parties blow it.

Just looking out for those who clamor for equal treatment when both parties blow it.

Always a good decision.

Links, please.

I know CNN broke the stock case in 2006 I would suggest checking CNN.com's archives.

for the other story involving him as a Illinois senator I don't recall the whole story just that it involved him receiving money from someone he wasn't suppose while in office.

If I find any hard links I will send them to you.

I believe you will find that if you investigate a little further into Bob Barr you will find he is essentially a repainted Republican--like most Libertarians--and actually does not stand for protecting civil rights. Wanting to remove power from the federal government but give it to the state government does not protect rights. It just moves the rights remover a little closer to home.

I believe you are talking about his position on same sex marriage, I do not know of any others that fit this description though I will glad to learn of them if any more exist.

The only issue that I know of that he supports states deciding on it same sex marriage, which is not the position of the Libertarian Party (but no politician ever meets every party line). If you know of more issues where he wishes to send more power to the states, especially on civil liberty issues, let me know.

Also commenting on this, constitutionally this move is illegal, sense the US constitution guarantees equal protections under the law. I believe in the 14th amendment but could be another amendment. Any move like this to send a civil rights decision to the states to decide is as unconstitutional as the separate-but-equal civil unions solution presented by most democrats, including Sen. Obama.

I know CNN broke the stock case in 2006 I would suggest checking CNN.com's archives.

for the other story involving him as a Illinois senator I don't recall the whole story just that it involved him receiving money from someone he wasn't suppose while in office.

If I find any hard links I will send them to you.

The other issue was thinking of was the Tony Rezko issue over his property I have no idea about why I though this had to do with him as a state senator maybe because the purchases were made in Chicago.

I know Wikipedia has more on Tony Rezko at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko

A hard link for the 2005/2006 investments are at sourcewatch.org another wiki website http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Controversies

I know wiki's are not the best of links but these were the easiest to find I will post anymore links I find.

I know CNN broke the stock case in 2006 I would suggest checking CNN.com's archives.

for the other story involving him as a Illinois senator I don't recall the whole story just that it involved him receiving money from someone he wasn't suppose while in office.

If I find any hard links I will send them to you.

I believe you are talking about his position on same sex marriage, I do not know of any others that fit this description though I will glad to learn of them if any more exist.

The only issue that I know of that he supports states deciding on it same sex marriage, which is not the position of the Libertarian Party (but no politician ever meets every party line). If you know of more issues where he wishes to send more power to the states, especially on civil liberty issues, let me know.

Also commenting on this, constitutionally this move is illegal, sense the US constitution guarantees equal protections under the law. I believe in the 14th amendment but could be another amendment. Any move like this to send a civil rights decision to the states to decide is as unconstitutional as the separate-but-equal civil unions solution presented by most democrats, including Sen. Obama.

Ah, finally a Libertarian actually willing to REASON instead of just dismissing everything an opponent says. Thank you.

I'll let others actually address your points, since I'm too tired to do this right now.

*snip*

On the flip side, an interesting article about John McCain and gambling...

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/28/america/28gamblingweb.php?pass=true)

McCain and team have many ties to gambling industry

A lifelong gambler, McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party's evangelical base, opponents of gambling. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of McCain.

"One of the founding fathers of Indian gaming" is what Steven Light, a University of North Dakota professor and a leading Indian gambling expert, called McCain.

The maverick indeed...

McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as "birds of prey." Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors.

All this is well and good, hard to really sum up the merits and demerits of gambling and some might say it's been a source of revenue for a group of people who've been pretty much left destitute by the dream of America.

Yet, is it for political purposes alone?

As public opposition to tribal casinos has grown in recent years, McCain has distanced himself from Indian gambling, congressional and American Indian officials said.

But he has rarely wavered in his loyalty to Las Vegas, where he counts casino executives among his close friends and most prolific fund-raisers. "Beyond just his support for gaming, Nevada supports John McCain because he's one of us, a Westerner at heart," said Sig Rogich, a Nevada Republican kingmaker who raised nearly $2 million for McCain at an event at his home in June.

After the Abramoff scandal, McCain stopped taking campaign donations from tribes. Some American Indians were offended, especially since McCain continued to accept money from the tribes' lobbyists.

Resentment in Indian Country mounted as McCain, who was preparing for another White House run, singled out the growth in tribal gambling as one of three national issues that were "out of control." (The others were federal spending and illegal immigration.)

Franklin Ducheneaux, an aide to Morris Udall who helped draft the 1988 Indian gambling law, said that position ran contrary to McCain's record. "What did he think? That Congress intended for the tribes to be only somewhat successful?" Ducheneaux said.

Was McCain for the Indians, gambling, or just gambling in Las Vegas?

"We told him this off-reservation shopping had to stop," Rogich said. "It was no secret that the gaming industry, as well as many potentially affected communities in other states, voiced opposition to the practice."

In the spring of 2005, McCain announced he was planning a sweeping overhaul of Indian gambling laws, including limiting off-reservation casinos. His campaign said Las Vegas had nothing to do with it.

I've very selectively quoted from a long article, it's overall an interesting look at John McCain's boast that's he immune to lobbyists, mostly of the Abramoff affair, but it just doesn't hold up in actuality.

On the flip side, an interesting article about John McCain and gambling...

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/28/america/28gamblingweb.php?pass=true)

McCain and team have many ties to gambling industry

I hope you did not think I was calling McCain a Saint. :p

Some one stated the McCain can't be all evil and Obama a saint so I brought up a couple of Obama controversies that I could recall off the top of my head.

I hope you did not think I was calling McCain a Saint. :p

Some one stated the McCain can't be all evil and Obama a saint so I brought up a couple of Obama controversies that I could recall off the top of my head.

Indeed, Bob Barr however...

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit," - Bob Barr.

Bob Barr's words in respect to the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he sponsored that defined marriage as the life-long union between a man and a woman.

The sort of morality he showed in 1992, when he was photographed licking whipped cream off the breasts of two women.

Barr is also on his third marriage.

Barr was also taken to court by his ex-wife in order to increase child support payments to $2, 100 a month.

He's quite typical of those who rail against immorality the loudest, I'd hate to get psychological on why.

Do you really want to stand behind a man who builds his life on the far-right values of America - didn't he give a speech to the modern day equivalent of the KKK?

I'll go find that one as well.

Here we are, from the LA Times archives...

Rep. Barr Gave Keynote Speech at Racist Group’s Convention
December 11, 1998 in print edition A-29
A spokesman for Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) acknowledged Thursday that Barr was a keynote speaker earlier this year at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization promoting views that interracial marriage amounts to white genocide and that Abraham Lincoln was elected by socialists and communists.

Barr spoke at the organization’s semiannual convention on June 6 in Charleston, S.C. His presence was cited by Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz, who testified against the impeachment of President Clinton at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Barr, the most outspoken proponent of impeachment in the House, serves on the committee.

“Congressman Barr, who was fully aware of this organization’s racist and anti-Semitic agenda, not only gave the keynote address to the CCC’s National Board but even allowed himself to be photographed literally embracing one of their national directors,” Dershowitz wrote committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

In a letter to Hyde responding to Dershowitz, Barr had declared that Dershowitz’s accusations were “unfounded and deplorable.”

Link (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/11/news/mn-52972)

However, this is all trumped by his mustache, which pretty much makes him look like a serial killer poster boy, the glasses simply add to this effect. The opening picture on your BobBarr08 site confirms this.

BTW I asked you earlier as to your previous Nation State name that I might recognize and you still haven't replied.
There's a very good reason why I haven't. Can ye nae guess, laddie?

At any rate, what does it matter?

I'll give you a clue: It's an anagram of 'A Hot Baptized Moose', which is very apt for this thread.

I know CNN broke the stock case in 2006 I would suggest checking CNN.com's archives.
Funny, cuz I was about to suggest YOU check the CNN.com archives, seeing as you're the one trying to back up your statement.

And yet here you are, getting cocky..... A political machine that lusts for power will stop at nothing, and this nation is full of enough people who look no further than headlines and people who vote on appearances. When I see the final returns after 4 November 2008, I'll relax.

I dont think pointing out what horrible week McCain has had is exactly "cocky".

If I were calling an early victory for Obama, and throwing a few barbed insults at a few conservatives here, that would be cocky.

You must admit, it looks badly for him right now. Next week might bring a different story.
I for one, think Palin is dragging him down now that her spotlight has turned a sickly green, and for that, im completely grateful.

My personal opinion of the woman is that shes not just a "Theo-Con", shes also a horrible person, and should be beaten with a dead moose, and then have her hair pulled out by a team of very gay, very fabulous, atheist hockey players.

Indeed, Bob Barr however...

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit," - Bob Barr.

Bob Barr's words in respect to the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he sponsored that defined marriage as the life-long union between a man and a woman.

The sort of morality he showed in 1992, when he was photographed licking whipped cream off the breasts of two women.

Barr is also on his third marriage.

Barr was also taken to court by his ex-wife in order to increase child support payments to $2, 100 a month.

He's quite typical of those who rail against immorality the loudest, I'd hate to get psychological on why.

Do you really want to stand behind a man who builds his life on the far-right values of America - didn't he give a speech to the modern day equivalent of the KKK?

I'll go find that one as well.

Here we are, from the LA Times archives...



Link (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/11/news/mn-52972)

However, this is all trumped by his mustache, which pretty much makes him look like a serial killer poster boy, the glasses simply add to this effect. The opening picture on your BobBarr08 site confirms this.

He cant be racist! Hes a Libertarian!

Note, the above is not a shot at libertarians but at Ron Paul;)

I believe you are talking about his position on same sex marriage, I do not know of any others that fit this description though I will glad to learn of them if any more exist.

The only issue that I know of that he supports states deciding on it same sex marriage, which is not the position of the Libertarian Party (but no politician ever meets every party line). If you know of more issues where he wishes to send more power to the states, especially on civil liberty issues, let me know.

Also commenting on this, constitutionally this move is illegal, sense the US constitution guarantees equal protections under the law. I believe in the 14th amendment but could be another amendment. Any move like this to send a civil rights decision to the states to decide is as unconstitutional as the separate-but-equal civil unions solution presented by most democrats, including Sen. Obama.
The fact that he supports a measure which is obviously illegal and unconstitutional sounds like a very good reason NOT to vote for Bob Barr.

Did I misread your earlier post? Were you suggesting that you support him? Gosh, with friends like you... :tongue:

Funny, cuz I was about to suggest YOU check the CNN.com archives, seeing as you're the one trying to back up your statement.

I am sorry I guess your finger are too tired to type cnn.com and type "obama controversy".

Or maybe you just don't want to look into it, either way I apologize.

The fact that he supports a measure which is obviously illegal and unconstitutional sounds like a very good reason NOT to vote for Bob Barr.

Did I misread your earlier post? Were you suggesting that you support him? Gosh, with friends like you... :tongue:

Obama supports the separate but equal civil unions, which is just as unconstitutional. Hell McCain supported it till he decided to run for President, then he had to suck the neo-con tit and religious conservatives tits.

So going by your logic no one should vote this election because all the candidates support unconstitutional issues.

Or maybe this behavior is acceptable in major parties, hell we let them get away with everything else.

I am sorry I guess your finger are too tired to type cnn.com and type "obama controversy".

Or maybe you just don't want to look into it, either way I apologize.

It's actually more like - you make the argument, now prove it. It's not unreasonable to expect the person that makes the claim to provide evidence.

Indeed, Bob Barr however...

"The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit," - Bob Barr.

Bob Barr's words in respect to the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he sponsored that defined marriage as the life-long union between a man and a woman.

The sort of morality he showed in 1992, when he was photographed licking whipped cream off the breasts of two women.

Barr is also on his third marriage.

Barr was also taken to court by his ex-wife in order to increase child support payments to $2, 100 a month.

He's quite typical of those who rail against immorality the loudest, I'd hate to get psychological on why.

Do you really want to stand behind a man who builds his life on the far-right values of America - didn't he give a speech to the modern day equivalent of the KKK?

I'll go find that one as well.

Here we are, from the LA Times archives...



Link (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/dec/11/news/mn-52972)

However, this is all trumped by his mustache, which pretty much makes him look like a serial killer poster boy, the glasses simply add to this effect. The opening picture on your BobBarr08 site confirms this.

So reverend Wright was a saintly champion, oh wait no hes was a blatant bigot and was the spiritual leader and close friend of Obama until his message was exposed to the American Public.

Now maybe I am crazy but I go to a church because I support the reverends message. Maybe Obama went for other reasons but to me it seems like he supported the message but out by Wright or he would have left the church. Of course he can try and hide behind the "I didn't attend church that Sunday remark"

But Obama can step away from that, once more major parties do what they want while the third parties need to be Christ-like no not be the most vile thing in the realm of politics.

No wonder why our country is so messed up. LOL

He cant be racist! Hes a Libertarian!

Note, the above is not a shot at libertarians but at Ron Paul;)

I got the joke. LOL

It's actually more like - you make the argument, now prove it. It's not unreasonable to expect the person that makes the claim to provide evidence.

I never made any claims CNN made claims. I mentioned the there stories in passing, and referenced where I had seen them (which was CNN, Fox News, and MCNBC). Once more if you want me to do the work for you I would hope that you would pay me at least. $10 per hour sound reasonable?

So reverend Wright was a saintly champion, oh wait no hes was a blatant bigot and was the spiritual leader and close friend of Obama until his message was exposed to the American Public.

Now maybe I am crazy but I go to a church because I support the reverends message. Maybe Obama went for other reasons but to me it seems like he supported the message but out by Wright or he would have left the church. Of course he can try and hide behind the "I didn't attend church that Sunday remark"

But Obama can step away from that, once more major parties do what they want while the third parties need to be Christ-like no not be the most vile thing in the realm of politics.

No wonder why our country is so messed up. LOL


Wait wait wait. Someone attacks the candidate and you attack the pastor? I missed the part were Wright was running for president.

For God's sake, Wright is not Obama. Barr is Barr.

Obama supports the separate but equal civil unions, which is just as unconstitutional. Hell McCain supported it till he decided to run for President, then he had to suck the neo-con tit and religious conservatives tits.

So going by your logic no one should vote this election because all the candidates support unconstitutional issues.

Or maybe this behavior is acceptable in major parties, hell we let them get away with everything else.
Everybody being wrong does not make Bob Barr right. So specifically pointing out that he supports an illegal and unconstitutional measure does not make him attractive as a candidate. You are continuing to not-help him.

Obama supports the separate but equal civil unions, which is just as unconstitutional. Hell McCain supported it till he decided to run for President, then he had to suck the neo-con tit and religious conservatives tits.

So going by your logic no one should vote this election because all the candidates support unconstitutional issues.

Or maybe this behavior is acceptable in major parties, hell we let them get away with everything else.



Civil Unions (even between a man and a woman) are unconstitutional? Egads, better tell all 50 states!

I believe you are talking about his position on same sex marriage, I do not know of any others that fit this description though I will glad to learn of them if any more exist.

He also voted to ban homosexual couples from adopting in DC, so it isn't just marriage.

And there's his position on abortion. I suppose he doesn't really go "states' rights" on that one, given his support of a federal ban on an abortion procedure, but I wouldn't call that position libertarian or in support of civil rights.

And he's a staunch supporter of the "war on drugs", which, in my understanding, is a big no-no for Libertarians as well.

Also commenting on this, constitutionally this move is illegal, sense the US constitution guarantees equal protections under the law. I believe in the 14th amendment but could be another amendment. Any move like this to send a civil rights decision to the states to decide is as unconstitutional as the separate-but-equal civil unions solution presented by most democrats, including Sen. Obama.

I agree, they're both unconstitutional. But at least Obama is supporting some forward movement.

So reverend Wright was a saintly champion, oh wait no hes was a blatant bigot and was the spiritual leader and close friend of Obama until his message was exposed to the American Public.

Out of the sermon-snippets broadcast over and over again on Fox and the like, what exactly demonstrated Wright to be a "blatant bigot"?

All I saw in those clips was someone very critical and distrustful of his government. One would think that a Libertarian could seem something to agree with in that.

Now maybe I am crazy but I go to a church because I support the reverends message.

Do you agree with every single thing your pastor ever says?

Has your pastor never said something that, if taken out context and looped over and over could sound controversial?

So, the guy who supports a candidate who tried to ban the practice of Wicca (how dare they not be Christians, eh? Let's BURN THEM! No, wait, America's already had that idea once.) is trying to call Obama a bigot for going to Wright's church?

So reverend Wright was a saintly champion, oh wait no hes was a blatant bigot and was the spiritual leader and close friend of Obama until his message was exposed to the American Public.

Now maybe I am crazy but I go to a church because I support the reverends message. Maybe Obama went for other reasons but to me it seems like he supported the message but out by Wright or he would have left the church. Of course he can try and hide behind the "I didn't attend church that Sunday remark"

But Obama can step away from that, once more major parties do what they want while the third parties need to be Christ-like no not be the most vile thing in the realm of politics.

No wonder why our country is so messed up. LOL
Reverend Wright is not running for president. Bob Barr is.

Reverend Wright is not a member of Obama's campaign team. Bob Barr is the candidate.

There is no evidence to suggest that Reverend Wright and his ideas would be in any way involved in an Obama presidency. If Bob Barr were to become president, his ideas most certainly would play a role in his presidency.

Therefore, Bob Barr's transgressions are far more relevant to this election that Reverend Wright's are.

Your attempt to play the guilt-by-association card against Obama fails to counter arguments about Bob Barr's direct association with his own actions/statements/ideas.

I never made any claims CNN made claims. I mentioned the there stories in passing, and referenced where I had seen them (which was CNN, Fox News, and MCNBC). Once more if you want me to do the work for you I would hope that you would pay me at least. $10 per hour sound reasonable?Good, because if I'm looking up your claims, I want my regular € 50 an hour. You make a claim that CNN makes a claim, back your claim up. Considering how damn simple it is for you too verify what you said, I don't see why you're putting up such a fuss about it.

Also: I bolded the claims you've made so you can remember easier.
Obama pushed federal spending for two companies who executives contributed to him campaign. He also purchased a fair amount of stock in both companies prior to pushing for federal spending in the companies. Though Obama denies knowing he purchased the stock till later that year.

I believe that their was also so type of scandal while he was an Illinos Senator about receiving money from a lobbiest of something but I am not sure of any details on that.
Nowhere do you mention that these are CNN claims; they're all yours. Maybe you're claiming it because CNN did. Still means you claimed it, ergo verifying it to support YOUR argument is YOUR job.

*Pulls out deck chair to await a reply from PG* Popcorn anyone?

Really everyone has turned on him, it will be interesting to see what pans out.

I never made any claims CNN made claims. I mentioned the there stories in passing, and referenced where I had seen them (which was CNN, Fox News, and MCNBC). Once more if you want me to do the work for you I would hope that you would pay me at least. $10 per hour sound reasonable?

You did make a claim. You claimed that Obama had been in controversary. You failed to support those claims, except to say "oh, I saw it on TV once". This is not how debate works. If you say something, you need to back it up, otherwise you could just be talking our your ass. It is not his job to support your arguments, it is yours.

I'm not sure the "I don't have to back up my claims, you should just trust me. But if you don't, go look it up yourself" wouldn't go down well in, say, an essay, or a paper, or something, you know, real.

*Pulls out deck chair to await a reply from PG* Popcorn anyone?

Really everyone has turned on him, it will be interesting to see what pans out.

I dont think its fair to say Ive turned on him. Im open to what he has to say, because I dont think he marches lock step with Barr. Its just so far his claims have been weak.

*Pulls out deck chair to await a reply from PG* Popcorn anyone?

Really everyone has turned on him, it will be interesting to see what pans out.

I dont think its fair to say Ive turned on him. Im open to what he has to say, because I dont think he marches lock step with Barr. Its just so far his claims have been weak.
I'll stop attacking him as soon as he starts constructing arguments that are not entirely dependant on logical fallacies.

I'm not even attacking his comments about Obama controversies because I read his initial post as merely being a mention, in response to a question, that such controversies exist. I believe those controversies have already been debunked well enough, but I thought that was beside the point, as he was not specifically using them to attack Obama.

His remarks about and defenses of Bob Barr, on the other hand, are just too flawed to let slide.

I'll stop attacking him as soon as he starts constructing arguments that are not entirely dependant on logical fallacies.

I'm not even attacking his comments about Obama controversies because I read his initial post as merely being a mention, in response to a question, that such controversies exist. I believe those controversies have already been debunked well enough, but I thought that was beside the point, as he was not specifically using them to attack Obama.

His remarks about and defenses of Bob Barr, on the other hand, are just too flawed to let slide.


TBH, I actually find myself liking the guy, because he actually debates, in that he acually acknowledges what other people say, and doesnt just call us infidels in the eyes of The Free Market.

*Pulls out deck chair to await a reply from PG* Popcorn anyone?

Really everyone has turned on him, it will be interesting to see what pans out.I'm ticked off more by his blatant disregard for basic debating etiquette than his political position...

I dont think its fair to say Ive turned on him. Im open to what he has to say, because I dont think he marches lock step with Barr. Its just so far his claims have been weak.

Well maybe turned is to strong a word, but he doesn't seem to have many allies atm.

The basic fault in the Libertarian premise is 'hey, if everyone was like me, the world would be great', disregarding the nature of most Libertarians, who are among the most judgmental, yet simultaneously hypocritical, of anyone.

Bob Barr and John McCain think a marriage between man and woman to be the fundamental cornerstone of America, despite the fact they're both divorced. Both think abortion should be decided by others, despite being for freedom of rights, everyone should have free access to guns right?

If Barack Obama merely had to achieve the level of his opponents, he'd be a shoo-in, fact is he has to be 10 times better to even be considered, even then it's 50/50.

...and people say affirmative action is unfair.

Shameful really.

I never made any claims CNN made claims.

Who said this, then:

"Obama pushed federal spending for two companies who executives contributed to him campaign. He also purchased a fair amount of stock in both companies prior to pushing for federal spending in the companies. Though Obama denies knowing he purchased the stock till later that year.

I believe that their was also so type of scandal while he was an Illinos Senator about receiving money from a lobbiest of something but I am not sure of any details on that."

Yep - looks like you made those claims.

I mentioned the there stories in passing, and referenced where I had seen them (which was CNN, Fox News, and MCNBC). Once more if you want me to do the work for you I would hope that you would pay me at least. $10 per hour sound reasonable?

That's not how it works, my friend. Let me explain:

In a debate - you make a claim.
If you support it - it is evidence.
If you don't, it's opinion.

Anything you source, must be dealt with according to the evidence, anything you fail to source... well, it carries all the weight of an opinion - which means it's about worthless.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;14051127]I agree, they're both unconstitutional. But at least Obama is supporting some forward movement. /QUOTE]

He is supporting an unconstitutional froward movement.

You logic is very flawed and quite appalling. Separate but equal is not a step forward but half a step backwards.

As much as not having the courage to take on the issue is not right, being cowardly enough to offer discrimination as the solution to discrimination is appalling. Separate but equal is nothing more than sugar coated discrimination, I hoped that our country figured that out in the 1960's apparently we have not.

Who said this, then:



Yep - looks like you made those claims.



That's not how it works, my friend. Let me explain:

In a debate - you make a claim.
If you support it - it is evidence.
If you don't, it's opinion.

Anything you source, must be dealt with according to the evidence, anything you fail to source... well, it carries all the weight of an opinion - which means it's about worthless.

I did tell you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.

If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. Like I previously stated $10 an hour sounds fair to me.

I did tell you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.

If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. Like I previously stated $10 an hour sounds fair to me.

See....thats not how debates work. You need to provide your own sources.

The basic fault in the Libertarian premise is 'hey, if everyone was like me, the world would be great', disregarding the nature of most Libertarians, who are among the most judgmental, yet simultaneously hypocritical, of anyone.

First off this is a very uneducated judgment of the Libertarian Party. No one should be like anyone else, if you are a Libertarian, each person does whatever they want as long as they are not bringing harm to others. Tolerance is the backbone of the Libertarian Party, it is unfortunate that Bob Barr has disagreed with this position in the past. It is still sad that he does not fall into party lines on this issue, but he is still the candidate of the only party the fights for the rights of all Americans regardless.

Republicans fight for your rights as long as you agree with there social issues, Democrats fight for your rights as long as you agree with their fiscal issues.

Neither party is willing to fight for the rights of American's because they people who deserve free choice and a government that works for them, instead of a government that works for itself.

I did tell you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.

If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. Like I previously stated $10 an hour sounds fair to me.

Here's the thing.

You made the claims.

DO you WANT us to ignore them?

If you dont - you should provide evidence.

On the other hand, if you want to admit they were bullshit, feel free to not provide anything.


Should you hyperlink for us... yes, actually - you claim the story is 'in the CNN archives'. That's not SOURCING your claim any more than me saying 'I saw it in a book, once' would be.

It's really standard debating practise - if you make the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

If you won't - that's cool. I can just ignore anything you say... since the only real responses it will deserve is to be labelled 'opinion'.

See....thats not how debates work. You need to provide your own sources.

I did provide a several sources, CNN Fox News, MSNBC. If you do not want to go and research these sources then fine, don't I cannot drag you to these sources and force you to look at them.

Also I cannot provide my OWN sources because I did not witness these events. What I can do is provide the source of where I got my information from to you to see if you agree with my interpretation of the sources provided. There is nothing more I can do besides offer the places where I got my information from.

Here's the thing.

You made the claims.

DO you WANT us to ignore them?

If you dont - you should provide evidence.

On the other hand, if you want to admit they were bullshit, feel free to not provide anything.


Should you hyperlink for us... yes, actually - you claim the story is 'in the CNN archives'. That's not SOURCING your claim any more than me saying 'I saw it in a book, once' would be.

It's really standard debating practise - if you make the claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

If you won't - that's cool. I can just ignore anything you say... since the only real responses it will deserve is to be labelled 'opinion'.


Then fine go ahead, I am destroyed because you will not go to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC and look at their voluminous achieves on their television programs.

Like I said I can show you the source it is your job to read it.

Then fine go ahead, I am destroyed because you will not go to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC and look at their voluminous achieves on their television programs.


Exactly. Voluminous archives.

You havent pointed us to any evidence, any more than pointing out the window is giving directions.


Like I said I can show you the source it is your job to read it.

Fine.

Show us the source.

You know what I meant, are you staying on NSG?

Eu já disse que sim, meu filho. Mas o que eu disse em tom brincadeira.

He is supporting an unconstitutional froward movement.

The status quo is already unconstitutional. He supports at least a movement towards equal protection. I'm just as bothered as you are that he doesn't support going all the way there, but at least movement towards that goal is better than absolutely nothing.

As a comparison, imagine someone in the 60's who supported getting rid of some, but not all, Jim Crow laws. Yes, that politician would still be a problem. But he would be better than the politicians who wanted to keep all of them.

You logic is very flawed and quite appalling. Separate but equal is not a step forward but half a step backwards.

Having some protections under a separate but equal system is arguably better than no protections at all.

At best, it is a stepping stone on the way to true equality, but it is forward movement.

As much as not having the courage to take on the issue is not right, being cowardly enough to offer discrimination as the solution to discrimination is appalling. Separate but equal is nothing more than sugar coated discrimination, I hoped that our country figured that out in the 1960's apparently we have not.

You and me both.

Tolerance is the backbone of the Libertarian Party, it is unfortunate that Bob Barr has disagreed with this position in the past. It is still sad that he does not fall into party lines on this issue, but he is still the candidate of the only party the fights for the rights of all Americans regardless.

I find this position ridiculous. "Bob Barr doesn't fight for rights, but the party that does nominated him, so that makes it all ok."

If the party nominated him, it is clear that they are not actually fighting very hard for those issues. Voting for him would send a message to the party that he's the type of candidate you actually want.

Republicans fight for your rights as long as you agree with there social issues, Democrats fight for your rights as long as you agree with their fiscal issues.

And Libertarians fight for your rights as long as you agree with their fiscal policies. In fact, my biggest beef with the Libertarian party as a whole has been their near-total focus on fiscal issues while often ignoring or, worse, nominating people in opposition to civil rights in social issues.

I did provide a several sources, CNN Fox News, MSNBC. If you do not want to go and research these sources then fine, don't I cannot drag you to these sources and force you to look at them.

CNN reported today that aliens from Mars landed in Guatemala. True story.

See how useful that is? =)

First off this is a very uneducated judgment of the Libertarian Party. No one should be like anyone else, if you are a Libertarian, each person does whatever they want as long as they are not bringing harm to others. Tolerance is the backbone of the Libertarian Party, it is unfortunate that Bob Barr has disagreed with this position in the past. It is still sad that he does not fall into party lines on this issue, but he is still the candidate of the only party the fights for the rights of all Americans regardless.

Republicans fight for your rights as long as you agree with there social issues, Democrats fight for your rights as long as you agree with their fiscal issues.

Neither party is willing to fight for the rights of American's because they people who deserve free choice and a government that works for them, instead of a government that works for itself.

As though civil rights would ever come to pass if states had their way, as if the Civil War was not about individual rights, as if abortion is not about personal rights, as if every Libertarian candidate doesn't have some outdated opinion of American values and seeks to impose those on America.

Yet each one's personal life seems to contradict that position.

Why is is that every Libertarian candidate hold some pretty nasty views but, oh, that's not the Libertarian position!

Grow up.

Then fine go ahead, I am destroyed because you will not go to CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC and look at their voluminous achieves on their television programs.

Like I said I can show you the source it is your job to read it.
Source =/= CNN, Fox, MSNBC.

Source = links to one or more articles or informational reports (as from government sites) that contain the information upon which you based your argument.

You did not provide links to such articles/information. Therefore, you have not provided sources to back up your assertions. It is not our job to do your research for you.

Let me explain this: In NSG, if you make an assertion of fact, it is legitimate to challenge it by demanding to see a source that supports your assertion. The message is, "We doubt the truth of your claim, and we are not willing to take it just on your say-so. Show the facts you say exist so that we may judge for ourselves whether your statements are true/reasonable."

Failure/refusal to provide such supporting evidence undermines your argument by indicating that it has no foundation in fact. That means you lose the point.

In NSG, you may present opinions without supporting sources (though if you claim that some fact validates your opinion, then you will face the same challenges). You may also defend and justify opinions by logical argument alone, without providing sources.

But you will not get away with claiming a fact exists and then refusing to present it.

Source =/= CNN, Fox, MSNBC. Source = links to one or more articles or informational reports (as from government sites) that contain the information upon which you based your argument..

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

So you can't/won't provide a citation for your own claims and now you're done? Fair enough, it never happened then.

Eu já disse que sim, meu filho. Mas o que eu disse em tom brincadeira.

Yay! :)

One more otaku here! v^.^v

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

If I were you, so your arguments are more credible or perhaps taken into consideration in the future, I would present the links evidencing your claims. It´s just that simple. Otherwise, like Khadgar posted, it did not happen.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

What a shock.

You may wish to take your ass that Mur's handing you back, and reattach it where it belongs.

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

This tap-dance is all very entertaining, but you weren't originally asked for a "source" but for "links."

Regardless, NSG debate etiquette doesn't make the distinction you are making between source and citation. If you wish to make a claim or defend a claim that is disputed, I suggest you be prepared to provide linked citations.

What a shock.

You may wish to take your ass that Mur's handing you back, and reattach it where it belongs.

It is easy to win an argument when you refuse to listen to what is being said.

It is easy to win an argument when you refuse to listen to what is being said.

Pot, meet kettle.

It is easy to win an argument when you refuse to listen to what is being said.

We've already learned your debate tactic just from watching you in action. There's no need to repeat it for us explicitly.

Although, I wouldn't catagorize what you did as "winning". I think "got your ass handed to you" works better.

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.
So the bottom line of what you're telling us is that your "source" is something you saw on tv somewhere, some time, you're not sure when or on what channel, or who said it, or even exactly what it was that was said? And that is what you base your argument on?

Well, after all that yak-yak, this is just as I expected. So, your argument has no foundation, and I can ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up.

So the bottom line of what you're telling us is that your "source" is something you saw on tv somewhere, some time, you're not sure when or on what channel, or who said it, or even exactly what it was that was said? And that is what you base your argument on?

Well, after all that yak-yak, this is just as I expected. So, your argument has no foundation, and I can ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up.

But, but, he saw it on TV! That should be enough for you to find it! Use the google!

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

No - a citation is a reference to a specific source.

For example, if I write a paper on Organic Chemistry, and want to reference a specific example from a journal, I will 'cite my source' - which includes the name of the periodical, the date and or issue, the article in specific, possibly page numbers, maybe even specific line references - depending on what I'm citing.

The source is explicit - it's not just 'I saw it on CNN'.

On NS, standard form is to just 'quote' the information, as you would another poster... and then place a link showing where you got it from.

It's part common courtesy, and it's part just good practise.

It is easy to win an argument when you refuse to listen to what is being said.

Have you looked up that article on alien invasion yet?

It's there. I saw it.

Have you looked up that article on alien invasion yet?

It's there. I saw it.

CNN...no wait, Fox...could have been MSNBC....either way, some news show had an article where it said that people who used the name "Patrick" on forums are all child rapists.

It's true. Look it up yourself!

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

I humbly suggest that your attempts to establish academic bona fides would be more effective if you adhered to the rules of standard English usage.

Yay! :)

One more otaku here! v^.^v

Yay for the otakus!!
*offers some of her buttery pop corn*

Want some? This is getting rowdy and interesting.:D

Source = where you got your information from.

Citation = links to articles, or reports.

Sources are used in discussion, citation are used in research papers. I hope I cleared this up for you and still welcome you to visit the various media outlet's websites to find information on this subject.

At this point I consider this argument done and have nothing more to say about it at all.

Actually that's entirely untrue. A citation is a reference to the source. It is a methodology of explaining where you got your information from (your "source" as it were) so that others can find it.

Links are a handy way of doing that, but your differentiation between "citation" and "source" is erronious. When you are asked for a source, you are asked to provide a citation.

Yay for the otakus!!
*offers some of her buttery pop corn*

Want some? This is getting rowdy and interesting.:D

Sure. I AM in the fights, though. ;)

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

8 point lead.

As for our economic situation:http://www.gallup.com/poll/110782/US-Leaders-Not-Getting-High-Marks-Crisis.aspx

Both Obama and McCain are rated more favorably for their responses to the Wall Street mess than are their respective parties in Congress. Obama wins the approval of 46% of Americans, compared with 39% approving of the Democratic leaders in Congress more generally. Similarly, 37% of Americans approve of how McCain has responded, compared with 31% approving of the Republican leaders in Congress.

So, looking at RCP's list of averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) I have a question for the poll followers or people who maybe will just navigate fivethirtyeight better than me...

What the hell is up with GW/Battleground tracking? All of the polls, including FOX for crying out loud, have it at 5-6% with Gallup at a full 8% for Obama, GW/Battleground has it at 2% for McCain, and this is an updated poll from the last one that said the same thing. If RCP removed outliers the average lead would be 5.7%. I looked at their PDF and it's little more than a colorful flier that shows a Gallup-like tracking graph showing McCain sustaining a 2% lead for weeks. Who are these people, who are they talking to? Anyone know anything about them?

So, looking at RCP's list of averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) I have a question for the poll followers or people who maybe will just navigate fivethirtyeight better than me...

What the hell is up with GW/Battleground tracking? All of the polls, including FOX for crying out loud, have it at 5-6% with Gallup at a full 8% for Obama, GW/Battleground has it at 2% for McCain, and this is an updated poll from the last one that said the same thing. If RCP removed outliers the average lead would be 5.7%. I looked at their PDF and it's little more than a colorful flier that shows a Gallup-like tracking graph showing McCain sustaining a 2% lead for weeks. Who are these people, who are they talking to? Anyone know anything about them?

Theyre idiots.

Theyre idiots.

I was kinda hoping for something a little more nuanced or detailed. Clearly they're off when out of 7 polls they're off the next lowest mark by 7% and the others are all within 3% of each other-you don't need that undergraduate class in stats to figure that out. Though opinionated folks might cling to it like anything they can find that might support their sinking position, no matter how dubious. But really I was hoping someone knew something about them to indicate why they're so afield. I looked on fivethirtyeight to see if they had a rating and they're not even on his list. I don't know how to find if he explains or if it's just a "Yeah, they're clearly off, no point in fucking up my scale with their nonsense."

I did tell you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.See, notice the inherent hypocrisy of you demanding that everyone else look it up instead of you and then calling them lazy for not doing it.
If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. Like I previously stated $10 an hour sounds fair to me.Fair compensation is us not dismissing your posts as inane ramblings. It's fair, because it gets expected from everyone else.

I was kinda hoping for something a little more nuanced or detailed. Clearly they're off when out of 7 polls they're off the next lowest mark by 7% and the others are all within 3% of each other-you don't need that undergraduate class in stats to figure that out. Though opinionated folks might cling to it like anything they can find that might support their sinking position, no matter how dubious. But really I was hoping someone knew something about them to indicate why they're so afield. I looked on fivethirtyeight to see if they had a rating and they're not even on his list. I don't know how to find if he explains or if it's just a "Yeah, they're clearly off, no point in fucking up my scale with their nonsense."

http://www.tarrance.com/bg.cfm

They seem to be on the up-and-up. It says they're a bi-partisan poll headed by a Republican pollster and Democrat pollster. I can't find anything that would explain such a divergence.

I would note, though, that that above link is from the Republican polling agency. If you look at the supposed Democrat polling agency that they coordinate with, you'll notice that they don't have any polling information for this entire election cycle. The most recent Battleground information on their site is from the 2006 Congressional elections. Take that as you will.

http://www.lakesnellperry.com/polls/index.htm

See, notice the inherent hypocrisy of you demanding that everyone else look it up instead of you and then calling them lazy for not doing it.
Fair compensation is us not dismissing your posts as inane ramblings. It's fair, because it gets expected from everyone else.

You don't need to bother. It seems Patrick doesn't want to play anymore.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14051621&postcount=200

http://www.tarrance.com/bg.cfm

They seem to be on the up-and-up. It says they're a bi-partisan poll headed by a Republican pollster and Democrat pollster. I can't find anything that would explain such a divergence.

I would note, though, that that above link is from the Republican polling agency. If you look at the supposed Democrat polling agency that they coordinate with, you'll notice that they don't have any polling information for this entire election cycle. The most recent Battleground information on their site is from the 2006 Congressional elections. Take that as you will.

http://www.lakesnellperry.com/polls/index.htm
I feel lazy now for not doing this legwork myself, so thank you.

They taut their accuracy vs. other polls, but everyone does that. They don't have anything I can see for methodology or sampling. And everything is PDFs, which irratates me on a personal level...

It does seem lopsided, but Lakes does have a client list as well that's fairly long. I'll google later for some sort of independent analysis of them if I can find it now that I feel like a lazy ass for having someone else google their home pages...

You don't need to bother. It seems Patrick doesn't want to play anymore.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14051621&postcount=200Ah, well. It was entertaining watching him dodge a perfectly reasonable demand while it lasted.

vote communist!
the americans totally love 'em!

So, quick query: In light of the House rejection of the bailout legislation, and especially in light of the fact that the Republicans were only able to muster 33% of their delegation, how many eggs does McCain currently have on his face for "suspending" his campaign to ride into Washington on a white horse to ensure swift passage of said legislation? I'm thinking an even dozen.

So, quick query: In light of the House rejection of the bailout legislation, and especially in light of the fact that the Republicans were only able to muster 33% of their delegation, how many eggs does McCain currently have on his face for "suspending" his campaign to ride into Washington on a white horse to ensure swift passage of said legislation? I'm thinking an even dozen.
Oh, none, because he just finished blaming it all on Obama. :rolleyes:

Oh, none, because he just finished blaming it all on Obama. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/campaign.wrap/index.html

I saw that.

Oh, none, because he just finished blaming it all on Obama. :rolleyes:

Of course. Its not like it was the Republicans who caused it to fail or anything.


Oh well, when Obama fires back and blames McCain, more people who believe him. The vast majority in this country is starting to wise up and see through McRambo.

So, quick query: In light of the House rejection of the bailout legislation, and especially in light of the fact that the Republicans were only able to muster 33% of their delegation, how many eggs does McCain currently have on his face for "suspending" his campaign to ride into Washington on a white horse to ensure swift passage of said legislation? I'm thinking an even dozen.

Considering he made his 'rescue' attempt such a keen part of his 'economic' defence in the debate, you'd have to hope there are still at least SOME people holding him accountable.

"So - John, you had to suspend your campaign to make sure this got passed, eh? And... it still didn't? Oooh, that's got to be uncomfortable..."

Considering he made his 'rescue' attempt such a keen part of his 'economic' defence in the debate, you'd have to hope there are still at least SOME people holding him accountable.

"So - John, you had to suspend your campaign to make sure this got passed, eh? And... it still didn't? Oooh, that's got to be uncomfortable..."

Aye. It would be one thing if the numbers had been reversed and it was the Democrats who voted against 2 to 1. But he suspends his campaign to whip his party and he can't even muster 34%? I would hope people are able to open their eyes enough to at least see that last week's little stunt was just that, a political stunt.

Considering he made his 'rescue' attempt such a keen part of his 'economic' defence in the debate, you'd have to hope there are still at least SOME people holding him accountable.

"So - John, you had to suspend your campaign to make sure this got passed, eh? And... it still didn't? Oooh, that's got to be uncomfortable..."

Not only that, but McCain was taking credit for his part in passing the bill before news came out of the bill's failure:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html

I also found it interesting that McCain's campaign blamed Obama and the Democrats for the bill's failure, and accused them of putting politics first, while at the same time being overtly partisan and political in their attempt to assign blame. Apparently the irony was lost on them.

"This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country," Holtz-Eakin [senior McCain policy advisor] said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/campaign.wrap/index.html

In other words, if the bill passes, we take credit. If the bill fails, it's Obama's fault. Normally you wouldn't catch someone using such a self-serving cognitive bias so easily, but McCain and his advisors made it easy by first taking credit prematurely, and then assigning blame after the failure. Nice.

EDIT: In my opinion (and I believe this opinion is shared by many), good leaders take responsibility for everything that happens under their direction. They can take credit for their successes, but they must also take credit for their failures as well. McCain was not "leading" the bailout effort but was merely taking part in it, as were many others. Thus, his attempt to take credit for any success strikes me as out of place. However, if you're going to take credit for a bill's success, then it stands to reason that you must also share a great deal of responsibility for it's failure. The fact that McCain seems unwilling to do that indicates, to me, that he lacks an essential quality of many great leaders.

In other words, if the bill passes, we take credit. If the bill fails, it's Obama's fault. Normally you wouldn't catch someone using such a self-serving cognitive bias so easily, but McCain and his advisors made it easy by first taking credit prematurely, and then assigning blame after the failure. Nice.


It's not the fact that they'd use such a trick that amazes me... it's the fact that they use such a trick KNOWING they'll get away with it...

I could never support Bob Barr because of the utter corruption, nepotism and sexual deviances he's been accused of.
It's bad enough to falsify accounts but when you're doing it to a children's charity, stealing hundreds of thousands off them is just dispicable. Lowest of the low.
And then there's his rumoured sexual fetishes. They're too disgusting to even talk about. Made me feel sick to my stomach when I heard about them.
How can anyone support a man like this?

And then there's his rumoured sexual fetishes. They're too disgusting to even talk about. Made me feel sick to my stomach when I heard about them.
Go on....

Go on....

He's got a fetish for this thing that sprays blood everywhere monthly.

Go on....
Oh, I heard about on the radio or saw it on TV somewhere.

Now that I've told you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.

If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. $10 an hour sounds fair to me.

sound familiar? ;)

Oh, I heard about on the radio or saw it on TV somewhere.

Now that I've told you where to find the sources on this issue, if you fail to want to look it up then I am sorry, at that point is your problem of laziness not my problem of not telling you where to find the source.

If you want me to hyperlink everything just for you I will expect fair compensation. $10 an hour sounds fair to me.

sound familiar? ;)

lol. No seriously, what are this guys fetishes.

There's a very good reason why I haven't. Can ye nae guess, laddie?

At any rate, what does it matter?

I'll give you a clue: It's an anagram of 'A Hot Baptized Moose', which is very apt for this thread.
I dinna ken ye laddie. :confused:

The basic fault in the Libertarian premise is 'hey, if everyone was like me, the world would be great', disregarding the nature of most Libertarians, who are among the most judgmental, yet simultaneously hypocritical, of anyone.

Bob Barr and John McCain think a marriage between man and woman to be the fundamental cornerstone of America, despite the fact they're both divorced. Both think abortion should be decided by others, despite being for freedom of rights, everyone should have free access to guns right?

If Barack Obama merely had to achieve the level of his opponents, he'd be a shoo-in, fact is he has to be 10 times better to even be considered, even then it's 50/50.

...and people say affirmative action is unfair.

Shameful really.


Sorry Barry, I am wondering where you are coming from, are you trying to play a race card here?

Sorry Barry, I am wondering where you are coming from, are you trying to play a race card here?

Yes, everyone knows it's the elephant in the room.

Sorry Barry, I am wondering where you are coming from, are you trying to play a race card here?

The race card?

Here's a clue. Obama is half-black. Some people are going to regard him differently because of that. That's not a card. That's a fact.

What do you think would happen if Obama had grimaced and been as aggressive as McCain in that debate? I was having a discussion with a group of McCain supporters today and even they admitted that Obama has to avoid very carefully being seen as the "typical angry black man".

He does have to better. Jesus, the GOP ticket is imploding and appears to be a bit schizophrenic and they're still in the race. Hell, how close did Obama's PASTOR come to keeping him out of the white house. People barely blinked when similar issues turned up about Palin or McCain. There's a reason why people have tried to portray Obama as a Muslim and as a radical. It's because they need people to think "he's not one of us". No one is playing up that McCain was born in Panama to suggest he's not really American.

He's black and it unfortunately matters. Pretending it doesn't is illogical and unrealistic.

Sorry Barry, I am wondering where you are coming from, are you trying to play a race card here?
A recent AP-Yahoo News poll suggested that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm

So if he were white, we'd be seeing a 15 point lead over McCain, which would be all-but unbeatable.

This has happened before. I mentioned it in earlier posts, so apologies for dragging it up again. The most famous case was Dinkins (Black guy) vs Guiliani (White guy) for the NY mayoralty. Polls leading into the election had Dinkins at a 20 point lead. He won by just 1%. People tell pollsters whatever will make them sound non-racist, but when they walk into the polling booth, they'll vote against the Black guy.

A recent AP-Yahoo News poll suggested that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm

So if he were white, we'd be seeing a 15 point lead over McCain, which would be all-but unbeatable.

This has happened before. I mentioned it in earlier posts, so apologies for dragging it up again. The most famous case was Dinkins (Black guy) vs Guiliani (White guy) for the NY mayoralty. Polls leading into the election had Dinkins at a 20 point lead. He won by just 1%. People tell pollsters whatever will make them sound non-racist, but when they walk into the polling booth, they'll vote against the Black guy.


To be fair, there could have been other factors that lead to his lead shrinking.


Maybe?

People tell pollsters whatever will make them sound non-racist, but when they walk into the polling booth, they'll vote against the Black guy.

the bradely effect has diminished almost entirely at this point though - at least in most places.

The race card?

Here's a clue. Obama is half-black. Some people are going to regard him differently because of that. That's not a card. That's a fact.

What do you think would happen if Obama had grimaced and been as aggressive as McCain in that debate? I was having a discussion with a group of McCain supporters today and even they admitted that Obama has to avoid very carefully being seen as the "typical angry black man".

He does have to better. Jesus, the GOP ticket is imploding and appears to be a bit schizophrenic and they're still in the race. Hell, how close did Obama's PASTOR come to keeping him out of the white house. People barely blinked when similar issues turned up about Palin or McCain. There's a reason why people have tried to portray Obama as a Muslim and as a radical. It's because they need people to think "he's not one of us". No one is playing up that McCain was born in Panama to suggest he's not really American.

He's black and it unfortunately matters. Pretending it doesn't is illogical and unrealistic.

A recent AP-Yahoo News poll suggested that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm

So if he were white, we'd be seeing a 15 point lead over McCain, which would be all-but unbeatable.

This has happened before. I mentioned it in earlier posts, so apologies for dragging it up again. The most famous case was Dinkins (Black guy) vs Guiliani (White guy) for the NY mayoralty. Polls leading into the election had Dinkins at a 20 point lead. He won by just 1%. People tell pollsters whatever will make them sound non-racist, but when they walk into the polling booth, they'll vote against the Black guy.

It works both ways, how many people would be voting for him simply because he is black? Or is their no such thing as black racial prejudice?

Wasn't he winning states by a large percentage in the primaries that had a high black turnout? Didn't some of these have the highest turnout of blacks for a long time?

Yes, everyone knows it's the elephant in the room.

The elephant?

The elephant?

Certainly not the donkey :)

Certainly not the donkey :)

Whoosh

Did you hear that Barry? That was the sound of your joke going over my head.

So when you said "everyone knows it's the elephant in the room" you were saying that everyone know that it is (i.e me) a republican?

Whoosh

Did you hear that Barry? That was the sound of your joke going over my head.

So when you said "everyone knows it's the elephant in the room" you were saying that everyone know that it is (i.e me) a republican?
It's a very famous English saying that has it's origins in the Northern Ireland 'Troubles' about ignoring the biggest problem/issue and instead focusing on the smaller ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

Family Guy did in one scene but with a giant squid.

Whoosh

Did you hear that Barry? That was the sound of your joke going over my head.

So when you said "everyone knows it's the elephant in the room" you were saying that everyone know that it is (i.e me) a republican?

Amm... don't read anything into my last post aside from making an 'elephant' 'donkey' link in my head, it didn't mean anything.

As above posts show, those voting against Barack Obama may be balanced by those voting for.

The Bradley effect is up for debate, it appeared apparent in the California primaries, it may just be the case that it's disappeared in general but when it comes to something as important as a presidential candidate, it rears its ugly head again, so to say it's disappeared is not necessarily true.

Yet that's not my point, my point is that this election is more about reasons not to vote for Barack Obama than reasons to vote for John McCain. Barack Obama is the pivot, is he ready, can he be trusted, should I vote for him?

No one asks 'hmmm, I'm thinking about voting for John McCain, should I?'

Where this is the case, the elephant in the room is race, people ask all manner of questions but elections come down to a gut feeling and that gut feeling is tempered by the fact that Barack Obama is black.

Hence, when the Reverend Wright comes up, it has a marked effect, whereas John McCain's figures aren't affected at all by a similar situation. If Barack Obama was divorced, that would be a bigger issue than the reality that John McCain already is.

Much of America feels uneasy voting for Barack Obama because he's black, it's a simple fact. Many are being convinced partly because Barack Obama seems so very good, it almost overwhelms the heart, yet it just takes a small thing for them to swing back to John McCain.

John McCain can get away with a lot more than Barack Obama because of this. That is the elephant in the room.

If it's a case of you having never heard of the expression before...

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room)

It works both ways, how many people would be voting for him simply because he is black? Or is their no such thing as black racial prejudice?
yes and no.
Sure you could argue that some Blacks or other minorities are voting for him solely based on his skin colour.
However a couple of things spring to mind (other than boobies that is, but they're always there):
1. Blacks are a minority and vote overwhemingly for Democrats anyway. So any extra boost Obama's skin colour has on them is minimal overall. Well over 80% of Blacks voted for Kerry, so even if this is now 90% (or even 95%), the actual swing towards Obama would be only a couple of points.
2. Blacks are a disadvantaged minority, so the reasons for them being energised into voting for Obama are vastly different to the reasons White majority would have for voting against him. Having him up there is sending a positive message to the Black community that they can make it and are worthwhile. So his skin colour has the effect of making them want to vote, because they finally have someone they can identify with.
As opposed to hidden racism of a White person saying they support Dems but vote for McCain, based on lingerign racist beliefs about the competence of a Blak man to do such an important job.
The two reasons don't really match up.

A recent AP-Yahoo News poll suggested that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm

So if he were white, we'd be seeing a 15 point lead over McCain, which would be all-but unbeatable.

This has happened before. I mentioned it in earlier posts, so apologies for dragging it up again. The most famous case was Dinkins (Black guy) vs Guiliani (White guy) for the NY mayoralty. Polls leading into the election had Dinkins at a 20 point lead. He won by just 1%. People tell pollsters whatever will make them sound non-racist, but when they walk into the polling booth, they'll vote against the Black guy.

It's called the Bradley effect, and it has not been an issue for Obama so far.

The race card?

Here's a clue. Obama is half-black. Some people are going to regard him differently because of that. That's not a card. That's a fact.

What do you think would happen if Obama had grimaced and been as aggressive as McCain in that debate? I was having a discussion with a group of McCain supporters today and even they admitted that Obama has to avoid very carefully being seen as the "typical angry black man".

He does have to better. Jesus, the GOP ticket is imploding and appears to be a bit schizophrenic and they're still in the race. Hell, how close did Obama's PASTOR come to keeping him out of the white house. People barely blinked when similar issues turned up about Palin or McCain. There's a reason why people have tried to portray Obama as a Muslim and as a radical. It's because they need people to think "he's not one of us". No one is playing up that McCain was born in Panama to suggest he's not really American.

He's black and it unfortunately matters. Pretending it doesn't is illogical and unrealistic.

^^ This. So much this.

It works both ways, how many people would be voting for him simply because he is black? Or is their no such thing as black racial prejudice?

Wasn't he winning states by a large percentage in the primaries that had a high black turnout? Didn't some of these have the highest turnout of blacks for a long time?

Black people are 10% of the population. I think there's a bit more risk in having white people not voting for a Ni##er than can be accounted for black people voting for Obama just because he's black. While there is such a thing as black bigotry, it has far less of an effect on the outcome of the election. Also, did anybody consider what might have happened if the congress had let Bush (a plan McCain now wants) privatize social security. The situation would be even worse off than it is now.

It's called the Bradley effect, and it has not been an issue for Obama so far.
Thank you. I didn't know the name before I noticed someone else use it earlier.
As for not being an issue for Obama: It mightn't have been an issue for him while winning the Dem ticket, but as a rule, Dems are more liberal and thus less intolerant/racist. They're more likely to look behind the skin colour and support someone on their merits. And as previously stated, perhaps more inclined to vote for him to show their support of minorities.

Now he's running for President, things may well be different. One thing - all those people who supported one of the other Dem candidates, who may have normally be expected to just throw their support behind the winning one: They might just find the idea of a Black guy being President just unpalatable enough not to vote for him. Sure they'll give you every other reason why they don't support Obama, but the reasons given are obvious just attempts to justify their distaste rather than real. (not thinking of anyone on here)

I noticed in one poll, Obama's support comes from educated peoples whereas people w/o college degree overwhelmingly support McCain. Broad stroke I know, but generally speaking uneducated = more intolerant.
They're intolerant because they like to blame others for themselves not being a success. And who better to blame but the minorities, and affirmative action. So why would they vote for a minority they've spent most of their time blaming for their predicament?

Especially in the South, where such prejudices run deep, I think we'll see the Bradley effect come out this election.

yes and no.
Sure you could argue that some Blacks or other minorities are voting for him solely based on his skin colour.
However a couple of things spring to mind (other than boobies that is, but they're always there):
1. Blacks are a minority and vote overwhemingly for Democrats anyway. So any extra boost Obama's skin colour has on them is minimal overall. Well over 80% of Blacks voted for Kerry, so even if this is now 90% (or even 95%), the actual swing towards Obama would be only a couple of points.
2. Blacks are a disadvantaged minority, so the reasons for them being energised into voting for Obama are vastly different to the reasons White majority would have for voting against him. Having him up there is sending a positive message to the Black community that they can make it and are worthwhile. So his skin colour has the effect of making them want to vote, because they finally have someone they can identify with.
As opposed to hidden racism of a White person saying they support Dems but vote for McCain, based on lingerign racist beliefs about the competence of a Blak man to do such an important job.
The two reasons don't really match up.

Well yes and no indeed, but I don't think we should forget that it runs on both sides of the fence.

Amm... don't read anything into my last post aside from making an 'elephant' 'donkey' link in my head, it didn't mean anything.

As above posts show, those voting against Barack Obama may be balanced by those voting for.

The Bradley effect is up for debate, it appeared apparent in the California primaries, it may just be the case that it's disappeared in general but when it comes to something as important as a presidential candidate, it rears its ugly head again, so to say it's disappeared is not necessarily true.

Yet that's not my point, my point is that this election is more about reasons not to vote for Barack Obama than reasons to vote for John McCain. Barack Obama is the pivot, is he ready, can he be trusted, should I vote for him?

No one asks 'hmmm, I'm thinking about voting for John McCain, should I?'

Where this is the case, the elephant in the room is race, people ask all manner of questions but elections come down to a gut feeling and that gut feeling is tempered by the fact that Barack Obama is black.

Hence, when the Reverend Wright comes up, it has a marked effect, whereas John McCain's figures aren't affected at all by a similar situation. If Barack Obama was divorced, that would be a bigger issue than the reality that John McCain already is.

Much of America feels uneasy voting for Barack Obama because he's black, it's a simple fact. Many are being convinced partly because Barack Obama seems so very good, it almost overwhelms the heart, yet it just takes a small thing for them to swing back to John McCain.

John McCain can get away with a lot more than Barack Obama because of this. That is the elephant in the room.

If it's a case of you having never heard of the expression before...

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room)

Fair enough, I won't deny the fact that some people will vote against Obama because he is black, but I won't deny that some people will vote for him because he is black. But your point is taken.

And no I hadn't heard of the expression before, it now makes more sense.

Black people are 10% of the population.
Actually it is 12.8% as per the 2006 US census.

Thank you. I didn't know the name before I noticed someone else use it earlier.
As for not being an issue for Obama: It mightn't have been an issue for him while winning the Dem ticket, but as a rule, Dems are more liberal and thus less intolerant/racist. They're more likely to look behind the skin colour and support someone on their merits. And as previously stated, perhaps more inclined to vote for him to show their support of minorities.

Yet the article from USA today talked about Democrats now not wanting to to vote Dem come November because of a black man. Talk about painting broad strokes and not looking at your own evidence.

I knew from the beginning that regardless of whether he wins or losses this election people will be saying because of his race. If he losses for some reason that makes Americans racist, if he wins same problem. But there is no other reason not to vote for him is there.

Well yes and no indeed, but I don't think we should forget that it runs on both sides of the fence.

No, but as was stated, it's kind of irrelevant, given that the reasons are very different, and the sheer amount of influence from one side is negligible while the other side can have some serious affects.

Yet the article from USA today talked about Democrats now not wanting to to vote Dem come November because of a black man. Talk about painting broad strokes and not looking at your own evidence.
what happened? Did you manage to read just my first paragraph and then zone out? Am I really that boring?!

Read what I wrote after my 1st paragraph:
Now he's running for President, things may well be different. One thing - all those people who supported one of the other Dem candidates, who may have normally be expected to just throw their support behind the winning one: They might just find the idea of a Black guy being President just unpalatable enough not to vote for him. Sure they'll give you every other reason why they don't support Obama, but the reasons given are obvious just attempts to justify their distaste rather than real. (not thinking of anyone on here)

No, but as was stated, it's kind of irrelevant, given that the reasons are very different, and the sheer amount of influence from one side is negligible while the other side can have some serious affects.

So if one side does it, it is bad, but another side does it's alright because they is less of them?

what happened? Did you manage to read just my first paragraph and then zone out? Am I really that boring?!

Read what I wrote after my 1st paragraph:

No, but then your post is all over the place you say that Dems are more liberal thus less racist and then you say that Dems are less inclined to vote for him because he is black.

Wait, Obama is black?

So if one side does it, it is bad, but another side does it's alright because they is less of them?

I didn't say that. I was speaking of its effects on the overall vote, not of its moral or ethical standing.

No, but then your post is all over the place you say that Dems are more liberal thus less racist and then you say that Dems are less inclined to vote for him because he is black.
way to go to totally miss the point and interpret it as you see fit.
I said Dems are more tolerant as a whole and thus more likely to support a Black man running under their ticket.
I then said some (notice: some) Dems, when it comes to a really important issue like who is going to be the next president, might feel slightly uncomfortable witht the idea that it be a Black man.
Thus the Bradley effect kicks in.
Is the really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

way to go to totally miss the point and interpret it as you see fit.
I said Dems are more tolerant as a whole and thus more likely to support a Black man running under their ticket.
I then said some (notice: some) Dems, when it comes to a really important issue like who is going to be the next president, might feel slightly uncomfortable witht the idea that it be a Black man.
Thus the Bradley effect kicks in.
Is the really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Well tell me what the Bradley effect is because maybe I am not understanding that term fully.

So if one side does it, it is bad, but another side does it's alright because they is less of them?

Did you actually read what he wrote. They aren't the same thing. Moreover, you've not actually supported your position.

Are you really claiming that a swing that if EVERY black person in America that is eligible could represent about 2% is equivalent to the potential effect of racists who would never support a black man.

As of yet, I've never met anyone in person who said they were voting for Obama because he's black, but I have met a lot of people fulling willing to admit they don't want a "Muslim" with an America-hating pastor in the White House.

Note: The Muslim apparently follows every word of his Christian pastor. When I mentioned this, they said, "oh, you know what I mean."

So if one side does it, it is bad, but another side does it's alright because they is less of them?
No it's bad when the reasons are negative. It's good when the reasons are positive.
White people voting against Obama because they think his skin colour proves he's incompetent is bad.
Black people voting for Obama because they think his skin colour shows finally here's someone who understands them is good.

Again, is this too difficult a concept to grasp?

The problem with trying to tie Democrats or Republicans to certain positions on issues and on broader things like race is that both parties are simply too huge. In any other country, they'd be coalitions rather than full out super parties.

Dems, for example, would be something like:
Labour
Social Democrats
Greens

While Republicans would be
Liberal
Christian Democrat
Conservative

So, really, since we shoehorn so much into two parties, we end up with a lot of crossover of sentiments and confused feelings.

It works both ways, how many people would be voting for him simply because he is black? Or is their no such thing as black racial prejudice?

Wasn't he winning states by a large percentage in the primaries that had a high black turnout? Didn't some of these have the highest turnout of blacks for a long time?

And? Do you have reason to believe this is solely because he is black? Or is it just a little possible that people are excited for the first time in a generation. In Mississippi half a million new voters registered. They weren't all black. Meanwhile, of voters that said that race was their primary decider, they went heavily for Hillary. Same with those that listed sex. The evidence doesn't support your claim.

No it's bad when the reasons are negative. It's good when the reasons are positive.
White people voting against Obama because they think his skin colour proves he's incompetent is bad.
Black people voting for Obama because they think his skin colour shows finally here's someone who understands them is good.

Again, is this too difficult a concept to grasp?

So being racist is good in some circumstances, I understand your concept of it, I disagree with it.

So being racist is good in some circumstances, I understand your concept of it, I disagree with it.

I like how you ignore the argument, reword to mean something else and then pretend to defeat it. If only there was a name for such a thing. A nice little package for such a lack of logic. Something to represent the fallacy of your argument. If only I could think of it.

If racism were the sole reason, then you'd have a point. Obama is black man in America who despite a system with many disadvantages for a black man, and particularly someone of mixed race, Obama managed to rise from being the child of a single mother to getting a swipe at the highest office in the land in a country that has never elected anyone but white men to either that office or the office just below it. Meanwhile, his entire message is of hope and change. Is it any wonder that a group of people to which he belongs, a group of people that has been to some degree or another oppressed in this country since before it existed, find a degree of sunshine and potential in his message?

That you attribute the positive support of a group that has traditionally overwhelmingly supported Democrats as racist would be funny if it weren't so frighteningly ignorant of the social situation in America.

And? Do you have reason to believe this is solely because he is black? Or is it just a little possible that people are excited for the first time in a generation. In Mississippi half a million new voters registered. They weren't all black. Meanwhile, of voters that said that race was their primary decider, they went heavily for Hillary. Same with those that listed sex. The evidence doesn't support your claim.

Excited about what? Yes when some people start publicly supporting him when they haven't done so before to any other candidate I do, it is hardly surprising when I hear a black person say that they are supporting Obama, I mean who would have thought. And so the dems are full of sexists to, which doesn't surprise me either that sex and race are being made issues throughout this race, they should be deciding on the candidate that is most in line with their political views not voting for someone because they are black, a woman, a one legged pentathlete.

Excited about what? Yes when some people start publicly supporting him when they haven't done so before to any other candidate I do, it is hardly surprising when I hear a black person say that they are supporting Obama, I mean who would have thought. And so the dems are full of sexists to, which doesn't surprise me either that sex and race are being made issues throughout this race, they should be deciding on the candidate that is most in line with their political views not voting for someone because they are black, a woman, a one legged pentathlete.

Read above. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really this unaware of the social situation in and history of America?

Meanwhile, you have yet to provide the first bit of support for your claim. The actual evidence supports the opposite claim, but let's not let facts get in the way.

Well tell me what the Bradley effect is because maybe I am not understanding that term fully.
From what I understand it's when a person will either tell a pollster that:
1. They support the Black guy
2. That they're 'undecided'
When in reality they're neither and support the White guy. They say either of the two above in order to come across as non-racist (or non-confrontational).
And indeed, they may well somewhat support the Black guy, right up until polling day. But when it comes to marking the voting paper, they have those uncomfortable thoughts about whether the Black guy really is ready for such a powerful position and vote for the White guy instead.

The underlining racism here is that they don't mind the idea of a Black guy running, but having lingering doubts whether he'd be capable if he actually won. Those doubts are based on little else but his skin colour. There was a thread here a while ago about White voters attitudes towards Blacks, and they still have fairly negative views about them (Republicans moreso than Dems - also, which supports what I said above, undecideds have views more similar to Repubs than Dems).
These views surely would influence their vote. If not outright, at least in the idea of looking for reasons NOT to vote for the Black guy, rather than reasons to vote for him. Compile enough reasons against voting for him and it gives them reassurance that they're not doing it because they 'racist' but because he hasn't 'proved' himself.
Yet they don't do the same level of analysis on the other guy.

Getting back to my original post on this, A dem voter might well have been comfortable with Obama campaigning to run under the Dem ticket. But now he's their choice and it's the Presidency not just candidacy they might well start having those uncomfortable thoughts.

Excited about what? Yes when some people start publicly supporting him when they haven't done so before to any other candidate I do, it is hardly surprising when I hear a black person say that they are supporting Obama, I mean who would have thought. And so the dems are full of sexists to, which doesn't surprise me either that sex and race are being made issues throughout this race, they should be deciding on the candidate that is most in line with their political views not voting for someone because they are black, a woman, a one legged pentathlete.
How about excited about participating in politics and making a DIFFERENCE?

One of the largest problems with our electorate right now is that the feel apathetic. They feel as though their votes don't matter, that their participation is pointless, so they might as well not vote.

Obama changes that.

In addition to that, the simple fact is people find it easier to identify with someone whom they feel is similar to them in some respect, be it certain political positions, certain cultural positions, interests, or--yes--even gender and ethnicity(as sad as these last two are, it's still a reality for the vast majority of humanity.)

Now, imagine you're someone who's never been able to identify with many politicians, for one reason or another.

Yet all of a sudden here comes someone whom you can identify with, either because he's your skin colour, or simply because he excites you so much.

Yes, it's small wonder, and it's a good thing in most ways. We're not going to solve the issues of racial identity over night. Before we can, we need to get to the point where someone like Obama is not only electable, but not considered noteworthy because of their skin colour.

Until that happens, we're going to continue to see people identifying with politcians based upon this factor.

It's really just simple math.

Let's say 2% of black people are racist and 2% of white people. Yes, both groups are equally racist. Now do the math. Unsurprisingly, you won't find the effect equal on both sides.

Meanwhile, pretending that there aren't people who would normally support a candidate like Obama, but are worried he's just too different is to ignore the entire history of America and its politics.

Read above. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you really this unaware of the social situation in and history of America?

Meanwhile, you have yet to provide the first bit of support for your claim. The actual evidence supports the opposite claim, but let's not let facts get in the way.

Well where is your evidence? You made a few claims yourself, the only evidence I saw was the article from USA today but whatever.

And yes I know very little on the social situation in America. But I do know that there have been people beforehand that have come from poor black communities with abusive one parent homes and gone on to be successful in life, beforehand

Excited about what? Yes when some people start publicly supporting him when they haven't done so before to any other candidate I do, it is hardly surprising when I hear a black person say that they are supporting Obama, I mean who would have thought. And so the dems are full of sexists to, which doesn't surprise me either that sex and race are being made issues throughout this race, they should be deciding on the candidate that is most in line with their political views not voting for someone because they are black, a woman, a one legged pentathlete.

Is race and political view necessarily mutually exclusive? I would anticipate that a fair few of Obama's policies and a fair chunk of his rhetoric is linked to his experience as a black man in America. I would also anticipate that many blacks who are supporting Obama when they have never supported another candidate are doing so because they believe that this candidate, moreso than any other in history before, will be the most representative of their political views, and their needs, unsurprisingly.

I personally voted for Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja (Former Democrat leader in Australia) partially because as we are both women, I felt that she represented my views and would work to improve my situation in Australia. I felt confident that as a woman herself she would understand the issues important to myself personally. I didn't vote Democrat simply because she was a woman, but her gender certainly influenced my decision to a certain extent.

Just because someone who's black states that they will support a black man doesn't mean that race is the only reason. They may also do it because they think that he will understand and support their interests.

To simplify such a complex situation to "They're voting for Obama because they are both black" is racist. Unless you can provide evidence that these supporters would vote for any black candidate, regardless of their policies.