NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmmm... I thought he made it up. The only credit I gave him was that it was a bit charismatic and he came up with it pretty quick. It was the kind of joke my friends and I might make, but then my friends and I can't actually do it and certainly wouldn't consider it.

However, no, I hadn't seen it and such a comment by a Presidential candidate is appalling. Seriously, appalling. The idea that such a person would even have a shot is an embarrassment.

It was the kind of joke my friends and I might make...
It was like a Weird Al Yankovic or Polish Muslims kind of number.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/campaign.wrap/index.html

Relative link, for others.

Notice what he says about Couric's interviews with Palin:
"I know that there have been attacks on Sarah Palin that have been remarkable to me in many ways"

So apparently now even just lobbing softball questions at her ("What magazines do you read?") is an 'attack'.
McCain needs to change his deodorant. His current one, 'Desperation', just isn't doing it for him.


Oh, and he's gettign all whiny on us too:

Also Thursday, McCain jokingly said that Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."
"He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings."

"Look what I did! Look what I did! And still no-one loves me! waaaah! waaah! You people just don't know appreciate the work and effort I do! waah! waaah!"
too bad all your blustering did absolutely nothing, John. Aside from giving Lettermann a programme's worth of good material.

This has probably been mentioned before, but these paid ads on the forum, touting McCain and Palin as "mavericks" are teeth-clenchingly irritating.

Who on the McCain campaign thought that paying for ads on THIS site would pay off in any way??

This has probably been mentioned before, but these paid ads on the forum, touting McCain and Palin as "mavericks" are teeth-clenchingly irritating.

Who on the McCain campaign thought that paying for ads on THIS site would pay off in any way??

Not only that, but what does being an unbranded calf have to do with anything? The word means nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews

Theyre getting desperate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews

Theyre getting desperate.
i dont know that its going to do him any good. obama has more money to spend and can (and is) put out both positive and negative ads. they already have ads that hit mccains health care plan pretty hard. they are able to respond to mccains lies, exaggerations and misleading allegations very quickly.

i dont know that its going to do him any good. obama has more money to spend and can (and is) put out both positive and negative ads. they already have ads that hit mccains health care plan pretty hard. they are able to respond to mccains lies, exaggerations and misleading allegations very quickly.

It wont work at all. Not even a little. But its just funny to watch them try.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews

Theyre getting desperate.
Sooooo...they've decided that they've got nothing positive to offer the voters ("McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient") and will instead just attack the other side.
Very positive of you there, John. So very very positive of you.
He deserves not just to lose, but to lose badly.

Sooooo...they've decided that they've got nothing positive to offer the voters ("McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient") and will instead just attack the other side.
Very positive of you there, John. So very very positive of you.
He deserves not just to lose, but to lose badly.

This year it wont work. If the American people are anything but the epitome of the herd it wont work.

Its exactly as he said it. McCain has nothing to offer America. He flat out admitted it.

I don't understand why people only list Obama and McCain as choices. Those are NOT our only choices, and I don't consider them the best choices. They both supported this bailout. I say ANYBODY but McCain or Obama!

I don't understand why people only list Obama and McCain as choices. Those are NOT our only choices, and I don't consider them the best choices. They both supported this bailout. I say ANYBODY but McCain or Obama!
I second that emotion!!

I don't understand why people only list Obama and McCain as choices. Those are NOT our only choices, and I don't consider them the best choices. They both supported this bailout. I say ANYBODY but McCain or Obama!

I dont know about you, but Im not nastolgic for the 30s.

I dont know about you, but Im not nastolgic for the 30s.

I am, but then Brazil BENEFITED from the crash.

Not that it would happen again. This time Brazil would get the shaft just like everyone else.

I am, but then Brazil BENEFITED from the crash.

Not that it would happen again. This time Brazil would get the shaft just like everyone else.
I understood that Brazil benefited from Germany going into full War-mode production and bought up all the raw materials Brazil could supply.
I don't think you really want that to happen again.

I understood that Brazil benefited from Germany going into full War-mode production and bought up all the raw materials Brazil could supply.
I don't think you really want that to happen again.

Wait, what?

I thought it was Argentina that was Germany's South American puppet, and Brazil was the U.S.'s.

(as I understand it) that's basically what Michigan votes on.

That's exactly what we're voting on this election, and if your state had been in a recession since 2001 and an 8.9% unemployment rate you would too.

I think Obama would have to fuck things up hard to get Michigan at this point. West Michigan would normally be very strong McCain territory but with the state's economy being what it is

Obama can't lose. The other side is a very old man that wouldn't survive a mild winter and an extreme christian hysteric MILF (devil-free soul build in !!!) that thinks that dinosaurs and humans saw each other...

I dont know about you, but Im not nastolgic for the 30s.
what? are you too young to have watched "the waltons" on tv? who wouldnt want to live like they did?

I don't understand why people only list Obama and McCain as choices. Those are NOT our only choices, and I don't consider them the best choices. They both supported this bailout. I say ANYBODY but McCain or Obama!
they arent our only choices but they are the only 2 men who have a chance to win. im not going to vote for some lame 3rd party candidate and let john mccain take the whitehouse.

it does help that im happy to vote for obama but even if he were this years john kerry i would vote for him to do my part in keeping that creepy old man from winning.

I understood that Brazil benefited from Germany going into full War-mode production and bought up all the raw materials Brazil could supply.
I don't think you really want that to happen again.

True, and true. You know I was joking, though, I assume.

Wait, what?

I thought it was Argentina that was Germany's South American puppet, and Brazil was the U.S.'s.

More or less. Brazil had what we called "política pendular", or pendular politics. Essentially, Getúlio Vargas, our President at the time, played nice with both sides, sold stuff to both sides, allied with the Allies when it was clear they would win and by sending some few troops only into Italy, and let Brazil come out of the war with lots of countries, including yours, owing Brazil money.

One of the contentions of the Obama campaigns campaign strategy was whether or not it would cause the McCain campaign to have to spend precious resources protecting his own backyard.

Well, that appears to be the case. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/04/obama_gaining_crucial_ground/)
But the Obama surge, coinciding over the last 10 days with the crisis on Wall Street and the debate over a federal bailout, has left McCain on the ropes in eight states with a combined 101 electoral votes that Bush carried four years ago. The Republican is slipping further behind not only in Michigan, but also in four other states that went Democratic four years ago, but which McCain hoped to pull into the GOP column this year.

By contrast, McCain does not lead Obama in any state that Kerry captured in 2004. That year, Bush beat Kerry by 35 electoral votes - 286 to 251 (one elector from Minnesota voted for Kerry's running mate, John Edwards).

"It means the road for McCain to 270 is narrowing, whereas for Obama there are still several paths," said Dante Scala, professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. "McCain can now win by holding the states George Bush won in 2004, but playing defense won't be that easy because Obama is doing well in a number of those states. The fact that states like Indiana and Missouri are still on the table spells trouble for McCain."

We already know that McCain pulled out of Michigan, the state that supposedly Obama couldn't win because he 'lost' it in the primaries and because the Democratic party punished it.

The organizing advantage certainly might be a factor-
Greg Strimple, senior adviser to the McCain campaign, said stepped-up efforts will cause traditionally Republican states like Indiana to "snap back" into the GOP column.

The Hoosier State may not be reflexive, however. Before the May 6 Democratic primary, the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton waged furious organizing campaigns and, combined, amassed more total votes than Bush did in the 2000 general election when he beat Al Gore in Indiana by 16 percentage points.

Perhaps the best demonstration of who has had to play defense, however...
Of Obama's 82 events, 62 have been in states that Bush won in 2004 and 20 have been in states won by Kerry.

Conversely, of 97 McCain events since June, 59 have been defending states Bush won and 38 were on offense, in states taken by Kerry.

Now McCain has 31 days to see if he can sling enough muck to manage a come back against a fairly tephlon candidate. It may be too early to uncork the champagne, but it might be time to at least start picking the brand...

So, about 10 minutes after my boyfriend tells me about McCain officially announcing that the campaign is going to get dirty now and that they're going to concentrate, among else, on Obama's "connection" to a former Weather Underground member (and I'm all "crap, that's perfect for them - now they can yell terrorist to their hearts' content and it's totally going to stick"), I see this headline on the bottom of a Yahoo News Page:

"Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/palin_obama;_ylt=A0wNcwQF6.dIkhUAeAdh24cA)

Please kill me now.

My favourite part of that article, an Associated Press report (!), is this, though:

While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, it's a stretch of any reading of the public record to say the pair ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.
:tongue:

This cracks me up. Poor Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer, clearly didn't want to be reporting that shit.

The article had been up on Yahoo all of 5 minutes at the time I pulled that quote, I'm rather positive it'll be edited eventually so I figured I'd preserve it for posterity.

So, about 10 minutes after my boyfriend tells me about McCain officially announcing that the campaign is going to get dirty now and that they're going to concentrate, among else, on Obama's "connection" to a former Weather Underground member (and I'm all "crap, that's perfect for them - now they can yell terrorist to their hearts' content and it's totally going to stick"), I see this headline on the bottom of a Yahoo News Page:

"Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/palin_obama;_ylt=A0wNcwQF6.dIkhUAeAdh24cA)

Please kill me now.

My favourite part of that article, an Associated Press report (!), is this, though:


:tongue:

This cracks me up. Poor Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer, clearly didn't want to be reporting that shit.

The article had been up on Yahoo all of 5 minutes at the time I pulled that quote, I'm rather positive it'll be edited eventually so I figured I'd preserve it for posterity.
oh no where, they were on the same neighborhood watch group or something. that makes them bestest friends.

its not new, or news, its just crap to be thrown.

So, on a SLIGHTLY different note, I've got a few questions about this (http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/10/03/Judge_refuses_to_block_Palin_abuse_of_power_probe) article. Things that jump out in particular are this: Branchflower's report will not include the testimony of Palin's husband, Todd, and several top aides who refused to appear under subpoena. How can someone not appear under a subpoena? Isn't that kinda that point, that some sort of penalty is implied for non co-operation?

Secondly,
At first, Palin agreed to cooperate with the probe, but since being picked in late August to be McCain's running mate, she, her family and staff have instead said the legislative investigation has been compromised by politics and that they would only cooperate with a separate investigation run by the Alaska State Personnel Board, whose members Palin can fire. What are the chances of it going to the ASPB? Is that a legitimate chance, or more Palin fantasy? And isn't it ironic that, should it go to the Personnel Board, then she could abuse her power to get out of being convicted of abuse of power?

I, for one, look forward to October 10.

So, on a SLIGHTLY different note, I've got a few questions about this (http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/10/03/Judge_refuses_to_block_Palin_abuse_of_power_probe) article. Things that jump out in particular are this: How can someone not appear under a subpoena? Isn't that kinda that point, that some sort of penalty is implied for non co-operation?

Secondly, What are the chances of it going to the ASPB? Is that a legitimate chance, or more Palin fantasy? And isn't it ironic that, should it go to the Personnel Board, then she could abuse her power to get out of being convicted of abuse of power?

I, for one, look forward to October 10.
they can not appear because they cant be charged with contempt until january when the alaskan congress meets again.

So, about 10 minutes after my boyfriend tells me about McCain officially announcing that the campaign is going to get dirty now and that they're going to concentrate, among else, on Obama's "connection" to a former Weather Underground member (and I'm all "crap, that's perfect for them - now they can yell terrorist to their hearts' content and it's totally going to stick"), I see this headline on the bottom of a Yahoo News Page:

"Palin says Obama 'palling around' with terrorists" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/palin_obama;_ylt=A0wNcwQF6.dIkhUAeAdh24cA)

Please kill me now.

My favourite part of that article, an Associated Press report (!), is this, though:


:tongue:

This cracks me up. Poor Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer, clearly didn't want to be reporting that shit.

The article had been up on Yahoo all of 5 minutes at the time I pulled that quote, I'm rather positive it'll be edited eventually so I figured I'd preserve it for posterity.

*le sigh* I was wondering how long it would take them to start getting dirty. The thing that worries me is that while stuff like this will mostly work on only the Republican base, it's quite likely to drag up Rezko and Wright, as were mentioned in that article, which we've already seen as being damaging to his chances with swing voters. Neither of those people have been talked about for ages, but they if there are attacks on Obama's associations, then they'll come up again, which is the LAST thing Obama needs.

Finally, interesting theory buy a guy commenting on fivethirtyeight, that McCain's pulling out of Michigan is paving the way for the REALLY dirty, nasty campaigning by non-official supporters of McCain. This way he can distance himself from them, but still have that message get out. Merde...

they can not appear because they cant be charged with contempt until january when the alaskan congress meets again.

Oh. Goody...

Oh. Goody...
thats what you get for asking.

if palin wins she will squelch any reprocussions and her bitterest alaskan enemies will be re-located to the man-sized safe in the VPs office.

thats what you get for asking.

if palin wins she will squelch any reprocussions and her bitterest alaskan enemies will be re-located to the man-sized safe in the VPs office.

I believe this is a case of "vote at your own risk".

But seriously? How is this not big news? I suppose it'll get bigger when the report comes out, but the fact that she and her aides and husband can break the law during the campaign and not get called out on it seems odd to me.

*le sigh* I was wondering how long it would take them to start getting dirty. The thing that worries me is that while stuff like this will mostly work on only the Republican base, it's quite likely to drag up Rezko and Wright, as were mentioned in that article, which we've already seen as being damaging to his chances with swing voters. Neither of those people have been talked about for ages, but they if there are attacks on Obama's associations, then they'll come up again, which is the LAST thing Obama needs.

Then the Obama campaign should just bring up the Keating Five over and over again. With the current financial crisis, that should hit close to home with a lot of people. And who cares if he was cleared of any wrongdoing, because according to the Republican Party rulebook, the accusation is all that's necessary.

Then the Obama campaign should just bring up the Keating Five over and over again. With the current financial crisis, that should hit close to home with a lot of people. And who cares if he was cleared of any wrongdoing, because according to the Republican Party rulebook, the accusation is all that's necessary.

I'd like to hope the Obama campaign can keep the moral highground, but that's a pretty good backup plan if things start going awry.

I'd like to hope the Obama campaign can keep the moral highground, but that's a pretty good backup plan if things start going awry.

What good is the moral high ground if it costs the Democrats the presidency again?

I have a plan. It's nothing bad or criminal but it might be a bit rich for some bloods. TG me, those who want to hear.

I believe this is a case of "vote at your own risk".

But seriously? How is this not big news? I suppose it'll get bigger when the report comes out, but the fact that she and her aides and husband can break the law during the campaign and not get called out on it seems odd to me.
i am also confused as to why this isnt big news.

heres a theory: SHE wasnt given a subpoena. the lawlessness of her husband and cronies is not national news.

*shrug* maybe?

im interested to see if she is going to get slammed in this--since it seems pretty obvious that she DID It, but not that it is against alaskan law-- or if she gets a pass and has made herself look like a creep for no good reason.

What good is the moral high ground if it costs the Democrats the presidency again?

Aye, I agree. It's more important that they win than that they run a clean campaign. If they look like the GOP attacks are sticking, they should hammer the point. That would be the "things going awry" bit :p

i am also confused as to why this isnt big news.

heres a theory: SHE wasnt given a subpoena. the lawlessness of her husband and cronies is not national news.

*shrug* maybe?

im interested to see if she is going to get slammed in this--since it seems pretty obvious that she DID It, but not that it is against alaskan law-- or if she gets a pass and has made herself look like a creep for no good reason.

Well, you actually have a point, she wasn't given a subpeona. That was my exxageration. Still, if the lawlessness of some guy Obama vaguely knows 30 years before Obama ran for office is relevant, surely this is...

I think she'll get a bit of slamming when the report gets released, unless it unequivocally clears her of all wrongdoing. Still, the husband's and cronies' contempt should still cause a LITTLE bit of angst... hopefully?

Aye, I agree. It's more important that they win than that they run a clean campaign. If they look like the GOP attacks are sticking, they should hammer the point. That would be the "things going awry" bit :p
not to worry. i live in a swing state. obama is hitting mccain hard on his health care plan. and probably other things but i do try to not watch any political ads (thats why i got a dvr from the satellite company)

Well, you actually have a point, she wasn't given a subpeona. That was my exxageration. Still, if the lawlessness of some guy Obama vaguely knows 30 years before Obama ran for office is relevant, surely this is...

I think she'll get a bit of slamming when the report gets released, unless it unequivocally clears her of all wrongdoing. Still, the husband's and cronies' contempt should still cause a LITTLE bit of angst... hopefully?
i hope so. its wrong to let that kind of thing go unpunished.

i have no idea what the legal penalties are for ignoring a subpoena in alaska though.

in any case, mccain will not get elected if david letterman has anything to say about it.

have you been watching his show? he savages mccain and/or palin every night.

Well can you imagine a candidate blowing off Carson back in the day?

Well can you imagine a candidate blowing off Carson back in the day?

*is young* Who was Carson? Somebody equivalent? Or do you mean Kressley (sp?)?

*is young* Who was Carson? Somebody equivalent? Or do you mean Kressley (sp?)?

Johnny Carson, long time host of The Tonight Show, late night legend in the US.

Well can you imagine a candidate blowing off Carson back in the day?
it wasnt as common for candidates to do talk shows when carson was on.

but it was a huge blunder on mccains part to stay in NYC after he told letterman he had to cancel because he was rushing to washington. letterman has been brutal.

Most of our talk has been about Palin, but of course, she's not running for president. I just finished reading Rolling Stone's new cover story about McCain, and all I can say is holy fuck.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

It's a long article (10 pages), and is a scathing biographical overview covering everything from his early naval academy training right through September 2008. If even a fraction of this is accurate -- and I know the stuff about the Keating Five, his flip-flops on various issues since 9/11, and the current campaign are indeed accurate -- then this SoB should not be permitted anywhere near the White House.

This article paints him as a man with a physically violent temper and impulse control problems so bad that he has more than once faced legal problems because of them and has had to be stopped from engaging in fights several times, and recently, three prominent Senate Republicans have been quoted as saying that he lacks the temperament to be commander-in-chief so badly that the thought of him in charge of the military and the nukes scares them.

It paints him as personally unethical and politically corrupt, a Senator who has pretty much based his entire career on selling his votes and influence to the highest corporate bidder. A person who puts his own personal ambitions above everything else, including his country, and for whom there is no lie that cannot be told and no circumstance that cannot be exploited -- including his own suffering in Vietnam -- for political gain.

Check especially pages 7-10 for details about his Congressional career up to the present. As I said, if even a portion of this is accurate (and I am sure much of it is, because some of it has been documented public knowledge for many years and some of it we just witnessed ourselves), McCain really is another Bush -- a slacker son of privilege who only got where he is today through the backroom intervention of his rich and well connected family, whose career consists entirely of alternating fuck-ups and corruption, and whose personality is...well...borderline to the say the least.

I have seen some brutal hatchet jobs in my day, but this one... damnation. RS doesn't hide its bias, but if the asserted facts pan out, then they don't leave much of McCain standing.

Most of our talk has been about Palin, but of course, she's not running for president. I just finished reading Rolling Stone's new cover story about McCain, and all I can say is holy fuck.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

It's a long article (10 pages), and is a scathing biographical overview covering everything from his early naval academy training right through September 2008. If even a fraction of this is accurate -- and I know the stuff about the Keating Five, his flip-flops on various issues since 9/11, and the current campaign are indeed accurate -- then this SoB should not be permitted anywhere near the White House.

This article paints him as a man with a physically violent temper and impulse control problems so bad that he has more than once faced legal problems because of them and has had to be stopped from engaging in fights several times, and recently, three prominent Senate Republicans have been quoted as saying that he lacks the temperament to be commander-in-chief so badly that the thought of him in charge of the military and the nukes scares them.

It paints him as personally unethical and politically corrupt, a Senator who has pretty much based his entire career on selling his votes and influence to the highest corporate bidder. A person who puts his own personal ambitions above everything else, including his country, and for whom there is no lie that cannot be told and no circumstance that cannot be exploited -- including his own suffering in Vietnam -- for political gain.

Check especially pages 7-10 for details about his Congressional career up to the present. As I said, if even a portion of this is accurate (and I am sure much of it is, because some of it has been documented public knowledge for many years and some of it we just witnessed ourselves), McCain really is another Bush -- a slacker son of privilege who only got where he is today through the backroom intervention of his rich and well connected family, whose career consists entirely of alternating fuck-ups and corruption, and whose personality is...well...borderline to the say the least.

I have seen some brutal hatchet jobs in my day, but this one... damnation. RS doesn't hide its bias, but if the asserted facts pan out, then they don't leave much of McCain standing.

In that case, spread it, Mur, urbi et orbi! Dying is the day worth living for!

In that case, spread it, Mur, urbi et orbi! Dying is the day worth living for!
*gently places hands on either side of Heikoku's head and guides it until his eyes light upon the link in my post.* :D

True, and true. You know I was joking, though, I assume.
I was hoping you were!

*is young* Who was Carson? Somebody equivalent? Or do you mean Kressley (sp?)?

I weep for the future. :(

I weep for the future. :(
There's no such thing as immortality. ;)

*gently places hands on either side of Heikoku's head and guides it until his eyes light upon the link in my post.* :D

Cool, but mail it to people you know, mail it to people you don't know, mail it to people you wish you knew, and to just about anyone in any swing state. Tattoo it on your forehead. Get it out there! :p

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html?hpid=topnews

Theyre getting desperate.

They certainly are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_el_pr/palin_obama

Cool, but mail it to people you know, mail it to people you don't know, mail it to people you wish you knew, and to just about anyone in any swing state. Tattoo it on your forehead. Get it out there! :p
How do you think I found out about it? I'm not a Rolling Stone subscriber. And no, I'm not going to tattoo a 10-page article on my forehead. You do that, if you're so enthused. :tongue:

Huh, you'd almost think the McCain campaign was full of fucking liars.

Huh, you'd almost think the McCain campaign was full of fucking liars.
It does give that impression, doesn't it? ;)

Obama should put out ads with this:
"voters should judge candidates by the example we set, by the way we conduct our campaigns, by the way we personally practice politics."

oh, and in case you're wondering who said that, it was a certain John McCain back in 2000.

And if that doesn't work Obama could use this one:
"I promise to raise the level of political dialogue in America...to treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect."

Which was also made by a certain John McCain at the start of this year.

Most of our talk has been about Palin, but of course, she's not running for president. I just finished reading Rolling Stone's new cover story about McCain, and all I can say is holy fuck.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1



OUCH!

good article. thanks for the link.

Most of our talk has been about Palin, but of course, she's not running for president. I just finished reading Rolling Stone's new cover story about McCain, and all I can say is holy fuck.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

It's a long article (10 pages), and is a scathing biographical overview covering everything from his early naval academy training right through September 2008. If even a fraction of this is accurate -- and I know the stuff about the Keating Five, his flip-flops on various issues since 9/11, and the current campaign are indeed accurate -- then this SoB should not be permitted anywhere near the White House.

This article paints him as a man with a physically violent temper and impulse control problems so bad that he has more than once faced legal problems because of them and has had to be stopped from engaging in fights several times, and recently, three prominent Senate Republicans have been quoted as saying that he lacks the temperament to be commander-in-chief so badly that the thought of him in charge of the military and the nukes scares them.

It paints him as personally unethical and politically corrupt, a Senator who has pretty much based his entire career on selling his votes and influence to the highest corporate bidder. A person who puts his own personal ambitions above everything else, including his country, and for whom there is no lie that cannot be told and no circumstance that cannot be exploited -- including his own suffering in Vietnam -- for political gain.

Check especially pages 7-10 for details about his Congressional career up to the present. As I said, if even a portion of this is accurate (and I am sure much of it is, because some of it has been documented public knowledge for many years and some of it we just witnessed ourselves), McCain really is another Bush -- a slacker son of privilege who only got where he is today through the backroom intervention of his rich and well connected family, whose career consists entirely of alternating fuck-ups and corruption, and whose personality is...well...borderline to the say the least.

I have seen some brutal hatchet jobs in my day, but this one... damnation. RS doesn't hide its bias, but if the asserted facts pan out, then they don't leave much of McCain standing.

You underestimate the American public's willingness to prop up incompetent or even outright corrupt politicians based on soundbites, media spin control and popularity contests.

You underestimate the American public's willingness to prop up incompetent or even outright corrupt politicians based on soundbites, media spin control and popularity contests.
No, actually, I don't. That's why I feel like I'm on the verge of an ulcer.

You underestimate the American public's willingness to prop up incompetent or even outright corrupt politicians based on soundbites, media spin control and popularity contests.
After GWB, I doubt anyone anywhere will underestimate the US public's ability to be fooled by flashing lights and mindless soundbites.


This graph is encouraging:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008-solid.png
It shows the solid, +5%, electoral votes omitting all states that are polling less than 5% difference between candidates.
It's showing Obama nearly winning the presidency without needing to win any of the so-called battleground states. Which means he's got the opportunity (and certainly the resources) to really concentrate on those and totally wipe McCain.

But I'm not getting too complacent yet. A month is an extremely long time in Politics. And McCain has shown his true colours now, hiring Tucker Eskew for his campaign. Tucker (stupid name, disgusting person) was the one who came up with the loathsome South Carolina 'illegitimate black girl' Bush smear campaign against McCain back in 2000.
What does that tell you about McCain's principles? And what does that forebode about the McCain campaign in the coming weeks?

But I'm not getting too complacent yet. A month is an extremely long time in Politics. And McCain has shown his true colours now, hiring Tucker Eskew for his campaign. Tucker (stupid name, disgusting person) was the one who came up with the loathsome South Carolina 'illegitimate black girl' Bush smear campaign against McCain back in 2000.
What does that tell you about McCain's principles? And what does that forebode about the McCain campaign in the coming weeks?
It tells us everything we need to know, and it bodes nothing good and everything bad.

It tells us everything we need to know, and it bodes nothing good and everything bad.
whether or not it does mccain any good it will be an ugly 4 weeks.

i once again recommend that anyone who watches much tv get a TIVO/DVR. it will save your sanity.

Dang Muravyets.

Great article and thank you.

I disliked the man but now I detest him.

whether or not it does mccain any good it will be an ugly 4 weeks.

i once again recommend that anyone who watches much tv get a TIVO/DVR. it will save your sanity.
Truth, that. I commented to my mom yesterday that I don't think the inevitable onslaught of negative foulness and slander is going to make any difference for McCain at all. If Obama loses, it will be because Americans are still afraid to vote for a black man (still very likely), not because of anything the McCain camp says from now on. I think this because there are so many people who believe or are confused by that incredible bullshit about Obama being a Muslim Kenyan guided by a racist pastor, yet he's still gaining in the polls. It seems, even if the lies are believed, they don't have much effect.

The McCain campaign is just empty at this point. They've got nothing left but poo to fling.

It tells us everything we need to know, and it bodes nothing good and everything bad.
exactly. I just wish more Americans will realise this and see McCain for what he really is.

Truth, that. I commented to my mom yesterday that I don't think the inevitable onslaught of negative foulness and slander is going to make any difference for McCain at all. If Obama loses, it will be because Americans are still afraid to vote for a black man (still very likely), not because of anything the McCain camp says from now on. I think this because there are so many people who believe or are confused by that incredible bullshit about Obama being a Muslim Kenyan guided by a racist pastor, yet he's still gaining in the polls. It seems, even if the lies are believed, they don't have much effect.

The McCain campaign is just empty at this point. They've got nothing left but poo to fling.
his age and temperament are already showing. the next 4 weeks are going to be even more intense. as mccain gets more and more erratic even his fans will be forced to notice that he is not up to the job of president.

his age and temperament are already showing. the next 4 weeks are going to be even more intense. as mccain gets more and more erratic even his fans will be forced to notice that he is not up to the job of president.

I would not be so overconfident. I come from the Hillary Clinton camp, and I can say that all it takes is one really good sound clip or commercial to wreak havoc....and you are never as invulnerable as you wish you were. McCain's people are sharp operators who have Rove-style training. They will continue rotating through lines of attack like some type of political Borg searching for the right shield modulation. Sooner or later they WILL find a political phaser that does damage to Obama. The only question mark that exists is if there is enough time for them to rebound before the election. That is not clear, but if Obama flubs up in one of the debates, the polls can change in a hurry.

And incidentally, if anyone shows me a picture of Barack Obama, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton Borgified, I will be most displeased. :eek:

And incidentally, if anyone shows me a picture of Barack Obama, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton Borgified, I will be most displeased. :eek:

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z191/empresspalpatine/ObamaBorg.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2255503097_31d065bb40.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/32/44913231_06be2b84af.jpg

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z191/empresspalpatine/ObamaBorg.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2255503097_31d065bb40.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/32/44913231_06be2b84af.jpg

I am most displeased. ;)

I am most displeased. ;)

I try :p

I would not be so overconfident. I come from the Hillary Clinton camp, and I can say that all it takes is one really good sound clip or commercial to wreak havoc....and you are never as invulnerable as you wish you were. McCain's people are sharp operators who have Rove-style training. They will continue rotating through lines of attack like some type of political Borg searching for the right shield modulation. Sooner or later they WILL find a political phaser that does damage to Obama. The only question mark that exists is if there is enough time for them to rebound before the election. That is not clear, but if Obama flubs up in one of the debates, the polls can change in a hurry.

There is also the fact that Obama and other groups will strike back, and are just as likely to find something that works against Johnny the POW and Bible Spice. Also, McCain is liable to flub worse in the debate, given his temper. To be sure, we must keep working to keep a Republican away from the White House, and we must keep working HARD, but I'm optimistic.

Well, YOU must keep working, I guess, as YOU are the Ohioan and I'm the Brazilian. :p

http://static.flickr.com/32/44913231_06be2b84af.jpg

That frightens me so much...

I would not be so overconfident. I come from the Hillary Clinton camp, and I can say that all it takes is one really good sound clip or commercial to wreak havoc....and you are never as invulnerable as you wish you were. McCain's people are sharp operators who have Rove-style training. They will continue rotating through lines of attack like some type of political Borg searching for the right shield modulation. Sooner or later they WILL find a political phaser that does damage to Obama. The only question mark that exists is if there is enough time for them to rebound before the election. That is not clear, but if Obama flubs up in one of the debates, the polls can change in a hurry.
i suppose it could happen but they have made a hash of the mccain campaign so far so if they are going to get it together and start doing things right, they better get to it.

and no matter how much they "handle" mccain, he is still erratic as hell. he voted for the bailout, praised the bill then said the bill sucked and that he hoped bush would veto it.

hes not sharp as a tack any more.

I just read the Omaha story on 538. Dude, if they're sending the VP after single EVs, then that's a tacit admission they're terrified.

I would not be so overconfident. I come from the Hillary Clinton camp, and I can say that all it takes is one really good sound clip or commercial to wreak havoc....and you are never as invulnerable as you wish you were. McCain's people are sharp operators who have Rove-style training. They will continue rotating through lines of attack like some type of political Borg searching for the right shield modulation. Sooner or later they WILL find a political phaser that does damage to Obama. The only question mark that exists is if there is enough time for them to rebound before the election. That is not clear, but if Obama flubs up in one of the debates, the polls can change in a hurry.

Welcome back Shal. We've had our disagreements in the past, but it's good to see you around again.

Most of our talk has been about Palin, but of course, she's not running for president. I just finished reading Rolling Stone's new cover story about McCain, and all I can say is holy fuck.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

It's a long article (10 pages), and is a scathing biographical overview covering everything from his early naval academy training right through September 2008. If even a fraction of this is accurate -- and I know the stuff about the Keating Five, his flip-flops on various issues since 9/11, and the current campaign are indeed accurate -- then this SoB should not be permitted anywhere near the White House.

This article paints him as a man with a physically violent temper and impulse control problems so bad that he has more than once faced legal problems because of them and has had to be stopped from engaging in fights several times, and recently, three prominent Senate Republicans have been quoted as saying that he lacks the temperament to be commander-in-chief so badly that the thought of him in charge of the military and the nukes scares them.

It paints him as personally unethical and politically corrupt, a Senator who has pretty much based his entire career on selling his votes and influence to the highest corporate bidder. A person who puts his own personal ambitions above everything else, including his country, and for whom there is no lie that cannot be told and no circumstance that cannot be exploited -- including his own suffering in Vietnam -- for political gain.

Check especially pages 7-10 for details about his Congressional career up to the present. As I said, if even a portion of this is accurate (and I am sure much of it is, because some of it has been documented public knowledge for many years and some of it we just witnessed ourselves), McCain really is another Bush -- a slacker son of privilege who only got where he is today through the backroom intervention of his rich and well connected family, whose career consists entirely of alternating fuck-ups and corruption, and whose personality is...well...borderline to the say the least.

I have seen some brutal hatchet jobs in my day, but this one... damnation. RS doesn't hide its bias, but if the asserted facts pan out, then they don't leave much of McCain standing.
Holy fuck indeed.

The most chilling part for me is that up until about 2 months ago or so I actually used to think of John McCain as "not so bad for a Republican", i.e. even should he win it would still be nowhere near as bad as it would have been with any other Republican candidate.

And even after this picture had kept correcting itself ever more in recent times, I had no idea it was this bad.

I'm itching to send this on to people but none of my friends I could email it to is even American. Hrmph.

And heres the latest from the GOP mudsling-o-matic

Palin makes Obama terrorist claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653132.stm)

And heres the latest from the GOP mudsling-o-matic

Palin makes Obama terrorist claim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7653132.stm)
That's been linked a few times now in this thread. The best part so far is that even though the news seems to feel they have to report everything the candidates say, every article so far has also added, "They served on the same charity board once, Obama was 8 when Ayers did what he did, and Obama has denounced Ayers actions." Or, Palin is full of shit. Which shows obvious media bias by not just reprinting McCain press releases without comment, obviously.

That's been linked a few times now in this thread. The best part so far is that even though the news seems to feel they have to report everything the candidates say, every article so far has also added, "They served on the same charity board once, Obama was 8 when Ayers did what he did, and Obama has denounced Ayers actions." Or, Palin is full of shit. Which shows obvious media bias by not just reprinting McCain press releases without comment, obviously.

Well call me lazy for not reading the 139 page thread then. [/not sarcasm]

Well call me lazy for not reading the 139 page thread then. [/not sarcasm]

Well, it only happened yesterday, so you really only would have to check the last few pages to save yourself some time. But general rule of thumb, you only really have at most 4-6 hours after something happened before you can be sure someone here already mentioned it.

Well, it only happened yesterday, so you really only would have to check the last few pages to save yourself some time. But general rule of thumb, you only really have at most 4-6 hours after something happened before you can be sure someone here already mentioned it.

Fine then. Call me really lazy/ignorant.

Fine then. Call me really lazy/ignorant.
You're really lazy/ignorant! :p
Seriously, though, I don't have a problem with you linking to yet another article on it: seeing how different news outlets cover it (always with some variant of "they live in the same neighborhood, served on a board together for a while, Obama was at his house once, that's about it") IS part of the story, here.

Fine then. Call me really lazy/ignorant.

I'm sorry if its coming off as me ragging on you, it was just a passing comment. It's not that big a deal, it happens all the time.

I would not be so overconfident. I come from the Hillary Clinton camp, and I can say that all it takes is one really good sound clip or commercial to wreak havoc....and you are never as invulnerable as you wish you were. McCain's people are sharp operators who have Rove-style training. They will continue rotating through lines of attack like some type of political Borg searching for the right shield modulation. Sooner or later they WILL find a political phaser that does damage to Obama. The only question mark that exists is if there is enough time for them to rebound before the election. That is not clear, but if Obama flubs up in one of the debates, the polls can change in a hurry.

I would not compare John McCain's campaign to Clinton's. Hillary ran a competent campaign that didnt run during an economic collapse. She also didnt talk about how great the economy is the day it was crashing. Nor did she spend her whole life fightin regulation and then championing it when it was convenient.

Nor was hillary ever down by 7 points for nine days straight: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110935/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-Ninth-Straight-Day-50-43.aspx

Its check, and gradually getting closer to a checkmate. And McRambo knows it.

That's been linked a few times now in this thread. The best part so far is that even though the news seems to feel they have to report everything the candidates say, every article so far has also added, "They served on the same charity board once, Obama was 8 when Ayers did what he did, and Obama has denounced Ayers actions." Or, Palin is full of shit. Which shows obvious media bias by not just reprinting McCain press releases without comment, obviously.
I've noticed that every article thus far has included the following:
...it is a stretch of any reading of the public record to say the pair ever "palled around".
And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.
which is remarkable in itself. When news reporters are correcting a politician's lies so vehemently, you know somethng's wrong.

No doubt, of course, the usual dittoheads will cry, 'ebil libral media', but I think this is beyond that. It's one thing to show bias in reporting, but to outright call them a liar in print is another. Support for McCain is rapidly dwindling.

I've noticed that every article thus far has included the following:

which is remarkable in itself. When news reporters are correcting a politician's lies so vehemently, you know somethng's wrong.

No doubt, of course, the usual dittoheads will cry, 'ebil libral media', but I think this is beyond that. It's one thing to show bias in reporting, but to outright call them a liar in print is another. Support for McCain is rapidly dwindling.

And I cant imagine his new "tactics" helping him. Calling Obama a terrorist just reeks of desperation and even the most backwater, country bumpkin hick can see it.

And I cant imagine his new "tactics" helping him. Calling Obama a terrorist just reeks of desperation and even the most backwater, country bumpkin hick can see it.

Hey! I'd be more worried if I were you. This is essentially Clinton's "Kitchen Sink" strategy again, and we all know how brilliantly that worked, which is why Hillary is now the nominee.

Oh, wait...

Hey! I'd be more worried if I were you. This is essentially Clinton's "Kitchen Sink" strategy again, and we all know how brilliantly that worked, which is why Hillary is now the nominee.

Oh, wait...

And everything McCain will throw at Obama Hillary already did. In retrospect, we all owe Hillary a big THANK YOU for this. It will make everything McRambo and Caribou Barbie throw at Obama old news, and chances are hes already dealt with it and refuted it.

How ironic, considering how much conservatives kept claiming the Democratic nomination extending into June would be the downfall of the Democratic nominee.

Shockingly, it seems that just isn't the case. Maybe we should do this every election?

I wonder if the promise of a pit fit is just an attempt to match the ratings of the VP debate?

By now we all know McCain/Palin's 'gloves off' routine (the gloves have come off almost as many times as someone has been thrown under a bus-the real victim of this election cycle has been cliches...)-true to their word, they won't bring up Wright, some one else will (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06kristol.html?ref=opinion)-
I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?

She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

I kind of chuckled at this-
Since she seemed to have enjoyed the debate, I asked her whether she’d like to take this opportunity to challenge Joe Biden to another one.

There was a pause, and I thought I heard some staff murmuring in the background (we were on speaker phones). She passed on the notion of a challenge.
I imagine a room full of handlers shaking their heads, waving their hands and frantically mouthing "NO!NO!NO!"
Almost as funny as this-
And, really, shouldn’t the public get the benefit of another Biden-Palin debate, or even two? If there’s difficulty finding a moderator, I’ll be glad to volunteer.
Yeah, Bill...wait by the phone...

Of course, that's not the only line of attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06donate.html?ref=politics). In the old NASCAR adage of "If you ain't winnin', they must be cheatin'," the GOP wants an audit of Obama's finances-
The Republican National Committee plans to file a complaint on Monday against Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign raising questions about the legitimacy of its small contributions and donations from overseas.

Like Wright and Ayers and Rezko, this is actually old news-
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, however, actually raised the issue during the Democratic primary.

So why now?
...it appears that no action would be taken, even if the commission found merit in the complaint, until after the November election.
Because now they get to have just the accusation without the pesky chance that nothing untoward has happened. That's why.

There are some flags here, for sure-
But such donations do not have to be itemized in reporting to the election commission unless the donor’s total contributions exceed $200. The lack of information on such donors has been highlighted by watchdog groups as potentially troublesome. The groups have also praised the campaign of Senator John McCain for offering on its Web site a tool that allows a search of all of its donors, including those who gave less than $200.
...
The Obama campaign only recently began requiring donors from overseas to provide a valid United States passport number. Previously, it only required them to check a box confirming they were citizens.
Or perhaps more humorously,
The donations included thousands of dollars in excess donations, made in increments of $25, from someone named Good Will in Austin, Tex., who listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You.” It also cited another donor named Doodad Pro, from “Nunda, N.Y.,” with the same employer and occupation.

Both donors were flagged by the commission in warning letters sent to the Obama campaign by August. The campaign was supposed to have responded within 30 days. But its campaign finance filing in September showed it had failed to refund more than $10,000 in donations from each, although Obama officials say all of the money has now been returned. A campaign has 60 days from when it receives an excess contribution to address it.
Alright, that's bad. Not as bad as the GOP wants it to be, but bad.

I was going to quote it, but I'm lazy...when this started up some poster suggested that Obama should start bringing up the Keating Five. Well, wish granted (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14302.html)-
Pushing back against what it calls McCain's “guilt-by-association” tactics, the Obama campaign overnight began e-mailing millions of supporters a link to a website, KeatingEconomics.com, which will have a 13-minute documentary on the scandal beginning at noon Eastern time on Monday. The e-mails urge recipients to pass the link on to friends.
Here's a difference in the approaches. The McCain response is this-
McCain-Palin spokesman Brian Rogers said: "The difference here is clear. John McCain has been open and honest about the Keating matter, and even the Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated. By contrast, Barack Obama has been fundamentally dishonest about his friendship and work with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, whose radical group bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Nor has Barack Obama come clean on his close friendship with Tony Rezko, a felon convicted on bribery charges who subsidized the purchase of Barack Obama’s home. It's obvious that Barack Obama is frantically attacking because he knows that most voters find these kinds of friendships, and the failed judgment they expose, to be unacceptable for our next president."
"Yeah, but you knew that!" Well, we knew about Rezko and Ayers, too...they haven't 'uncovered' anything, they're just bringing up discarded news...(not a little dishonestly, like in this quote (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/05/attacks-personal-campaign-calendar-ticks-election-day/)-"Americans need to ask themselves if they've ever befriended an unrepentant terrorist, or had a convicted felon help them buy their house -- because those aren't smears, those are true facts about Barack Obama," McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. Rezko was convicted very recently, long after Obama bought his house. Remember, kids, if anyone who sold you anything is convicted later on of something, you're now culpable!)

But the point of the counter attack isn't that McCain is hiding anything, in fact-
Obama website about Keating says: “The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. ... The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules.”

In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee cleared McCain of corruption charges but cited him for “poor judgment” in meeting with federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr., a political patron who went to prison for fraud in connection with the collapse of the California-based Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which at the time was one of the biggest financial failures in the nation’s history.
In short, not judgment in who you're tangentially associated with, but in how McCain actually governs.

Whether the nuance comes across remains to be seen. This is the part of the election I always watch through my fingers.

Well done, CTOAN.

So the Dow is below 10K, down over [edit] 660 points, and all McCain wants to talk about is already-debunked smears against Obama. I really do not think this is going to help McCain. Americans -- many of whom are approaching retirement and even more of whom are feeling the credit crunch personally -- are now watching their 401Ks actually lose money, and what does McCain come to them with? Some bullshit about some 60s radical? wtf?

Well done, CTOAN.

So the Dow is below 10K, down over [edit] 660 points, and all McCain wants to talk about is already-debunked smears against Obama. I really do not think this is going to help McCain. Americans -- many of whom are approaching retirement and even more of whom are feeling the credit crunch personally -- are now watching their 401Ks actually lose money, and what does McCain come to them with? Some bullshit about some 60s radical? wtf?

Well, it comes as both Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110974/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-50-42.aspx) and Rassmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) show 8 point leads after three full days of polling following the VP debate-providing us another old chestnut, 'winning' is 'not getting knocked out,' which is the best they could say about Palin's performance.

Nothing is working, might as well go for broke I would guess is their mindset.

Well, it comes as both Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110974/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-50-42.aspx) and Rassmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) show 8 point leads after three full days of polling following the VP debate-providing us another old chestnut, 'winning' is 'not getting knocked out,' which is the best they could say about Palin's performance.

Nothing is working, might as well go for broke I would guess is their mindset.
Obama, speaking to the press, and also various news anchors and pundits are now saying that a senior McCain campaign advisor came right out and said that, as long as the public conversation stays focused on the economy, McCain will lose the election. :D

They are so pathetic. I've been saying for years that, at the heart of the modern rightwing/neocon philosophy is a fundamental and complete incompetence, and this McCain campaign is really laying that out for all to see. Apparently 8 years was all they could manage in appearing to know what they are doing.

I expect the massive pummeling the DOW took today will be another two or three points.

Obama, speaking to the press, and also various news anchors and pundits are now saying that a senior McCain campaign advisor came right out and said that, as long as the public conversation stays focused on the economy, McCain will lose the election. :D

They are so pathetic. I've been saying for years that, at the heart of the modern rightwing/neocon philosophy is a fundamental and complete incompetence, and this McCain campaign is really laying that out for all to see. Apparently 8 years was all they could manage in appearing to know what they are doing.

I'd say that's a generous assessment...

They certainly do have some troubles heading into tomorrows debate, articulated here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502356_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008100502674&s_pos=)-
"I think they've announced they want people to forget about the economy and talk about Barack Obama," Gibbs said. "I think that's very dangerous and very hard in a debate where you are taking questions from real people."

Can't really pull that Palin "I'm not going to answer your question, I'm going to speak straight to the American people" routine if it's the American people asking the question, and if they keep asking, "What about the economy?" and McCain keeps saying "Ayers!" it could go very bad for him...

I expect the massive pummeling the DOW took today will be another two or three points.
It's certainly going to make it more difficult to take the economy out of the discussion...

Worth noting, Rasmussen reports that Obama now has a lead greater than the lead Bush had at any time in the 2004 election (http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/MembersOnly/Three%20Day%20Presidential%20Track.htm)

It's certainly going to make it more difficult to take the economy out of the discussion...
I Predict (tm):

Question: Mr. McCain, what about that economy?

McCain: Well, I think we need to wait to see the effect that the Economic Rescue plan is going to have because I have faith in the strong fundamentals of our economy in these difficult times. All we need is a little more time, and that's why I want to focus on the present, not point backwards to the past, and that's why I say to you that Obama is a big gay commie Muslim terrorist who wants to blow up all your stuff because of a fictional connection that some spin doctor made up to a guy who might have wanted to blow up somebody's stuff 40 years ago, even though no case was ever made against him. Hussein!

I Predict (tm):

Question: Mr. McCain, what about that economy?

McCain: Well, I think we need to wait to see the effect that the Economic Rescue plan is going to have because I have faith in the strong fundamentals of our economy in these difficult times. All we need is a little more time, and that's why I want to focus on the present, not point backwards to the past, and that's why I say to you that Obama is a big gay commie Muslim terrorist who wants to blow up all your stuff because of a fictional connection that some spin doctor made up to a guy who might have wanted to blow up somebody's stuff 40 years ago, even though no case was ever made against him. Hussein!

And scene!

Seriously, I want McCain to try Palin's "talk straight to the American people" bullshit. I want to see it. I will laugh and laugh and laugh at how pathetic it will make him look.

The more of a margin that Obama gets over him in polling, the better I'll feel. After all, I'm going into the military, and I want someone whom I know will treat the military properly--in terms of usage--in there.

Anybody read this story (http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html) yet? Obama being a sweetheart to a random stranger, back when he was broke and a nobody, I think it will probably get some play.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/06/pub-fox-newsrasmussen-poll-obama-widens-lead-battleground-states/

Ownage.

Point of correction in the article. I did see a poll that said that Obama and McCain were not even, but that Obama was up by 6 (!!!) points. Dont know which is true.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/06/pub-fox-newsrasmussen-poll-obama-widens-lead-battleground-states/

Ownage.

Point of correction in the article. I did see a poll that said that Obama and McCain were not even, but that Obama was up by 6 (!!!) points. Dont know which is true.

7 point lead in Florida is HUGE. McCain can manage to win all the other 4 states in the article: Ohio, Missouri, Virgina and Colorado, and even claim the tied up north carolina, and it won't matter. he still loses.

Florida is an absolute MUST win for McCain. Depending on how the dice fall, it's still possible (very possible) for Obama to not win Florida, and still win the election, there's almost no way the numbers add up for McCain without Florida's 27 votes.

If Obama loses Florida, there's still many avenues for him to win (just taking Ohio and Colorado would make up for it), but if McCain loses Florida, he loses.

7 point lead in Florida is HUGE. McCain can manage to win all the other 4 states in the article: Ohio, Missouri, Virgina and Colorado, and even claim the tied up north carolina, and it won't matter. he still loses.


That was my thought too. 7 points in fucking Florida. And the media has been telling me McCain gets the Elderly vote...

But if hes really up b 6 in Ohio and winning Virgina, Missouri, NC, and Ohio...we're approaching Clintonian Landside here. Which wold be awesome.

7 point lead in Florida is HUGE. McCain can manage to win all the other 4 states in the article: Ohio, Missouri, Virgina and Colorado, and even claim the tied up north carolina, and it won't matter. he still loses.

It's even better than that. The worst realistic case for Obama as I see it is that he wins all the Kerry states except New Hampshire, and none of the Bush states. Adding Florida to that total puts Obama over the top; McCain could win Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire in addition to the five you named, and he'd still lose the election.

Also -- and I never even imagined this happening -- people apparently are more interested than the Keating Five than in Bill Ayers.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/obama-camps-kea.html

This thread is a waste of time, and so is the election. Everybody knows Obama's going to win.

It's even better than that. The worst realistic case for Obama as I see it is that he wins all the Kerry states except New Hampshire, and none of the Bush states. Adding Florida to that total puts Obama over the top; McCain could win Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire in addition to the five you named, and he'd still lose the election.

Also -- and I never even imagined this happening -- people apparently are more interested than the Keating Five than in Bill Ayers.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/obama-camps-kea.html
It makes me happy. Americans still know where the bottom line is -- at their wallets. People are watching money disappear from their 401Ks. THEIR 401Ks. That's THEIR money. Nobody cares about some bullshit about some 60s radical when THEIR money is in trouble.

And McCain is screwing up Florida as well, campaigning in that state on a platform of cutting a trillion dollars out of Medicare. Cutting Medicare. In Florida. Is he on crack or something?

It's even better than that. The worst realistic case for Obama as I see it is that he wins all the Kerry states except New Hampshire, and none of the Bush states. Adding Florida to that total puts Obama over the top; McCain could win Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire in addition to the five you named, and he'd still lose the election.

Also -- and I never even imagined this happening -- people apparently are more interested than the Keating Five than in Bill Ayers.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/obama-camps-kea.html
well the keating 5 is more applicable to today's situation than the weather underground is.

and mccain was directly implicated in helping mr keating do his dirty deeds where obama was 8 when mr ayers did his.

and mr keating when to jail, mr ayers didnt

the mccain camp keeps saying that mccain was EXHONERATED. but he wasnt. he was implicated and rebuked by the senate. he himself said it was bad judgment on his part.

and the ayers thing isnt new in this election cycle. hillary brought it up, it was brought up in a debate and sean hannity harped on it all summer long. keating 5 has (rightly) been left out of the debate.

obama says that he wont throw the first punch, but he will throw the last one. who knows how many OTHER ads he has in the closet ready to go should mccain and palin bring up some other anti-obama smear. they both need to think this thing through. mccain and palin have PLENTY of dirt that could be thrown right back at them.

This thread is a waste of time, and so is the election. Everybody knows Obama's going to win.
from your lips to god's ear!

....

from your fingers to god's eyes?... no that sounds like you are going to poke god in the eye....

from your post to god's inbox?

Political momentum is a strange thing. As you get popular, you get more media coverage, your message gets out there more, which attracts new supporters, which causes even a greater lead. Undecided voters look at your growing lead and think "hey, if all those people prefer him, they MUST be on to something" and the cycle continues.

As I think about it, I can come up with 4 things that have shifted things in Obama's favor that McCain had counted on to work for him. Four key tactics in McCain's strategy that failed.

1. The Long Democratic Primary Season

What McCain wanted: This was the first thing that McCain was banking on. Once he secured the Republican nomination, he tried to use his position to garner support among independents, while the Democrats were still trying to find their leader. He hoped that as long as the infighting continued with Democrats, he was in a better position to get his message out.

What actually happened: A few things stopped this from going in McCain's favor. First, to their credit, a lot of democrats and independents reserved judgment until a party leader was picked, they simply waited and didn't make up their mind until they knew the picture, this stopped McCain's strategy of picking up early support. Second, a lot of democrats and left leaning independents looked at the records and positions of McCain, Clinton, and Obama and decided that, whichever democrat won, he or she would be better than McCain. In other words, many decided, early on, whoever was the democratic nominee, they wouldn't be voting for John McCain. Sure, there was some swapping (Clinton supporters for McCain for example) but it wasn't the bulk of it. Third, once McCain secured the nomination, media coverage of him pretty much stopped, as the news focused on the ongoing Democratic primary. Nobody was paying attention to him as everyone watched Obama and Clinton talk. This allowed a lot of people who were either unsure or unfamiliar with Obama to really learn about him, and learn his policies. Obama had the disadvantage of being a relative political unknown, and the longer primary season kept people focused on him. Fourth, the long primary season and Clinton's dirty campaign got the smear tactics over with and out of the way. Although McCain is trying it now, Rev. Wright is old news, we've heard about it already. We've already integrated that knowledge into our political stances. Pointing it out again isn't changing our position. By playing rough with Obama, Clinton helped immunize him against similar attacks by McCain. We've heard it all, it's nothing new.

2. Sarah Palin

What McCain wanted:The convention "bump" is well documented. McCain's strategy was to ride that bump as long as possible, build momentum, and ride the wave to the white house. And to do that, he picked Sarah Palin, someone he hoped would keep the base gallvinized long enough to build a significant lead against Obama. And while it did, temporarily, get him a 1 point advantage, and it looked like his strategy would work, it didn't last.

What actually happened: Palin ate her tie. A lot of that political momentum was turned around when the discussion shifted to just how unbelievably bad Palin was. When even your supporters start talking about your poor judgment, that throws a wrench in your momentum. Likewise, when the discussion starts talking about how likely you are to die in office, and leave your incompetent lackey in charge, this isn't anything good for you. Even though Palin managed to slightly turn it around with her so-so and people were left feeling OK about her, they felt better about Joe Biden. She lost that momentum so badly that she needed to knock it out of the park to get it back, and she failed to do that. She may have done well enough to stop a continual downslide in support and pick up her numbers a bit, by then it was too late, the Obama train was picking up speed, and she didn't do enough to stop it.

3. The Campaign Suspension

What McCain wanted: McCain pulled a political gamble suspending his campaign. He hoped that the american public would have admired his leadership, and force Obama to do one of two things, either suspend his own campaign in response, thus pulling himself out of the spotlight, derailing his momentum, or refuse to do so, and thus allow McCain to attack him for his loss of leadership. Either Obama follows suit, or McCain can isolate him and attack him.

What actually happened: Obama handled it beautifully, basically standing up and saying he would continue to campaign, would continue to debate, and he'd do it and STILL be a senator, doing his job to help the financial crisis. He managed to turn McCain's attempt to back him in the corner into a way for him to argue that if McCain couldn't do two things at once, he was unfit to be President. At which point, it looked like McCain's strategy had failed, he would not be able to attack Obama, and, if he went through with his promise to suspend the campaign, not only would he appear to be incapable of multitasking, and thus unworthy of the presidency, it would also turn the scheduled debate into a free, 90 minute, nation wide commercial for Barack Obama. Thus, within the space of two days, he went from "I will not debate until a deal has reached" to "OK, I'll debate" as the deal fell through. This caused people to either see him as someone who would abandon his integrity once it became inconvenient for him, or as someone who concocted this entire ploy for political gain, and his suspension was never in the best interest of the nation, but in the best interest of John McCain. Thus a move to frame him as the presidential type instead was masterfully swapped into making OBAMA look more presidential, and he lost credibility when he backed out of his original statement within 48 hours.

4. The Debate

What McCain wanted: At that point, McCain was still the favored candidate in foreign policy concerns. An entire debate focused entirely on his area of expertise would allow him to win the debate, make himself appear to be the smarter candidate, and further push he momentum he was hoping to get through points 1-3. He was hoping by the time the debate rolled around, he'd already have a lead, and use this debate to slam it home, so that by the time the other debates occurred, his lead would be insurmountable, even if he lost to Obama in domestic issues.

What actually happened: The debate organizers realized how idiotic it would be to have the first time America hears both candidates speak at the same time, and have them spend the entire time talking about Iraq when the economy was falling to pieces. The organizers though, probably quite justifiably, that the first presidential debate should focus, at least to some extent, on the major issues that were happening at that very moment. This turned half the debate into a debate on the economy, and on to Obama's home turf. This allowed him to dominate the first half of the debate, and while he did suffer a bit in the foreign policy section, this turned what should have been a knock out for McCain into, at best, a push.

Question: Why in god's name do Americans have their ACTUAL election two years after their presidential election?

Also -- and I never even imagined this happening -- people apparently are more interested than the Keating Five than in Bill Ayers.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/obama-camps-kea.html

You know the best part of that article?

The term "Keating Five" was the seventh-most searched for term on Google Monday afternoon, right after searches for voter registration information in Texas and Florida, and right before the term "Vote For Change."

New voters have been favoring Obama by wide margins. If people are looking how to register, this favors Obama.

Question: Why in god's name do Americans have their ACTUAL election two years after their presidential election?

what do you mean "ACTUAL election"?

Question: Why in god's name do Americans have their ACTUAL election two years after their presidential election?

Our ACTUAL election?

what do you mean "ACTUAL election"?

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.

Gotta love how this is playing out. (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/06/palin-invokes-jeremiah-wright/)

As we already know (at least if you read my last post on the subject), it was William Kristol that suggested to Palin bring up Rev. Wright, from his NYT column- (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slog)
I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?
Of course, once he makes his way to his other job, the one at FOX, the headline is-
Palin Invokes Jeremiah Wright, Continues Hit on Obama-Ayers Relationship
CLEARWATER, Fla.: Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, tells columnist Bill Kristol she doesn't know why Barack Obama's former pastor is off-limits for discussion, calling his anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks 'appalling.'
Oh yeah...it goes on...
Ayers isn't the only character tied to Obama that Palin is reminding voters about. She also told FOX News contributor William Kristol, a columnist for The New York Times, that she doesn't know why Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. is off limits for discussion.

Wright is a retired pastor who preached at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and is credited by Obama as bringing him back to his Christian roots. After 20 years in his church, Obama denounced Wright and severed ties with Trinity United last spring after videotapes surfaced showing Wright making anti-American and anti-Semitic comments from the pulpit.
Of course, we remember what McCain said about it...
"Unfortunately, all I can do is, in as visible a way as possible, disassociate myself from that kind of campaigning," McCain said at the time.

So now, after giving an entirely different impression in the article so far, this is the new new version of what happened...
But pressed in an interview by Kristol, Palin said she didn't know "why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country."

Not, "when I asked she didn't hesitate" but now he pressed her. But the headline and first half of the article imply that she brought it up.

That's a tasty pretzel that is.

Well, now we know how the attacks will come. Will they work? We might see tomorrow...it's hard to see this having a greater news impact than a 700 point stock drop...

You know the best part of that article?

New voters have been favoring Obama by wide margins. If people are looking how to register, this favors Obama.

Ooh, I didn't catch that. This is probably happening because Texas and Florida are two of the most populous states whose registration deadlines are today, but it's good news in any case.

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.

you realize, I hope, that Congressional elections happen every 2 years? Senate terms are 6 years long, and every 2 years, 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election. House terms are 2 years, and the entire house goes up for election every 2 years.

The House IS up for election, the whole thing, The House elections occur ever even numbered year. Likewise a third of the senate seats are up for re-election this year.

It just so happens that presidential elections eclipse the other elections, especially on a national scale, but there are congressional elections going on now

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.

That's not actually how it works. The Senate has six year terms, and they run staggered in groups of roughly one-third each two years; in any given election year, approximately 33 senators are up for re-election. So, right now, there are a bunch of senators running campaigns as well. The House has two year terms, except for the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, who has a four year term.

you realize, I hope, that Congressional elections happen every 2 years? Senate terms are 6 years long, and every 2 years, 1/3 of the senate is up for re-election. House terms are 2 years, and the entire house goes up for election every 2 years.

The House IS up for election, the whole thing, The House elections occur ever even numbered year. Likewise a third of the senate seats are up for re-election this year.

It just so happens that presidential elections eclipse the other elections, especially on a national scale, but there are congressional elections going on now

Wow, that explains a lot. Like why America is in total crap. Two year terms, what is that?

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.

your theory of usian politics intrigues me and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

That was my thought too. 7 points in fucking Florida. And the media has been telling me McCain gets the Elderly vote...

But if hes really up b 6 in Ohio and winning Virgina, Missouri, NC, and Ohio...we're approaching Clintonian Landside here. Which wold be awesome.

Here's how the electoral vote shapes up according to several sites:


CNN has Obama up 250-189 with 99 in toss-up states.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

MSNBC has it Obama up 264-174 with 100 toss-up EVs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553

uselectionatlas.org calls it 309-174 for Obama with 55 toss-ups.
http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php

270towin.com has Obama up 260-163 and 115 toss-ups.
http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

fivethirtyeight.com (which doesn't list toss-ups) has it for Obama by 340-198.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/can-obama-clinch-on-june-3rd.html
(the article on the front page hasn't been changed in months, but the map is updated regularly)

electoral-vote.com doesn't list toss-ups either, but does have NC tied. Tally is 329-194 in favor of Obama with NC's 15 EVs up for grabs
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

realclearpolitics.com has Obama up 264-163 with 111 toss-ups.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

I did not include anything like this from Fox, because I couldn't find any maps or predictions on their site.

That's not actually how it works. The Senate has six year terms, and they run staggered in groups of roughly one-third each two years; in any given election year, approximately 33 senators are up for re-election. So, right now, there are a bunch of senators running campaigns as well. The House has two year terms, except for the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, who has a four year term.

That is the worst system I have ever heard of.

fivethirtyeight.com (which doesn't list toss-ups) has it for Obama by 340-198.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/can-obama-clinch-on-june-3rd.html
(the article on the front page hasn't been changed in months, but the map is updated regularly)

umm, you realize that you just linked to an old article, rather than the front page, right?

Here's how the electoral vote shapes up according to several sites:


CNN has Obama up 250-189 with 99 in toss-up states.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

MSNBC has it Obama up 264-174 with 100 toss-up EVs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553

uselectionatlas.org calls it 309-174 for Obama with 55 toss-ups.
http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/pollsa.php

270towin.com has Obama up 260-163 and 115 toss-ups.
http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

fivethirtyeight.com (which doesn't list toss-ups) has it for Obama by 340-198.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/can-obama-clinch-on-june-3rd.html
(the article on the front page hasn't been changed in months, but the map is updated regularly)

electoral-vote.com doesn't list toss-ups either, but does have NC tied. Tally is 329-194 in favor of Obama with NC's 15 EVs up for grabs
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

realclearpolitics.com has Obama up 264-163 with 111 toss-ups.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

I did not include anything like this from Fox, because I couldn't find any maps or predictions on their site.


When will people learn that the 50-state strategy is going to cost Obama the election?

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.
the federal government is comprised of 3 parts, the legistative, exectutive and the judicial. congress is not more powerful than the presidency and both get pushed around by the supreme court from time to time.

well the keating 5 is more applicable to today's situation than the weather underground is.

and mccain was directly implicated in helping mr keating do his dirty deeds where obama was 8 when mr ayers did his.

and mr keating when to jail, mr ayers didnt

the mccain camp keeps saying that mccain was EXHONERATED. but he wasnt. he was implicated and rebuked by the senate. he himself said it was bad judgment on his part.

and the ayers thing isnt new in this election cycle. hillary brought it up, it was brought up in a debate and sean hannity harped on it all summer long. keating 5 has (rightly) been left out of the debate.

obama says that he wont throw the first punch, but he will throw the last one. who knows how many OTHER ads he has in the closet ready to go should mccain and palin bring up some other anti-obama smear. they both need to think this thing through. mccain and palin have PLENTY of dirt that could be thrown right back at them.

All this is pretty clear to me in hindsight. When I first heard the McCain campaign was going negative, I thought they had the catchier story. A terrorist, hanging out with the Democratic nominee? People, I thought, are going to want to hear about that. And some of them haven't yet; not everyone pays attention during the primaries.

What I really didn't account for was Obama's masterful linking of the Keating Five to the economic crisis. I assumed that the scandal was too complex for the American people as a whole to understand, but if it's linked to the current state of the economy, they don't need to understand it to be worried about it. And another 700-point loss for the Dow just feeds into that, regardless of how strong the connection actually is.

If McCain keeps playing this game, look for Obama to run an ad about him not releasing his medical records next. The prospect of a President Sarah Palin, I think, worries more Americans right now than do Barack Obama's old acquaintances.

When will people learn that the 50-state strategy is going to cost Obama the election?

yeah, what a failure this "50 state strategy" is. Are you going to win Texas, mister B. Hussein Osama? Huh? ARE YOU?

No, you're not, you won't win Texas. So much for your "50 state strategy". Maybe you should have named it "35 state strategy" instead, mister smart guy.

40, tops...

the federal government is comprised of 3 parts, the legistative, exectutive and the judicial. congress is not more powerful than the presidency and both get pushed around by the supreme court from time to time.

It's still a really, really bad system.

umm, you realize that you just linked to an old article, rather than the front page, right?

No, I thought that was the front page. I'm so sorry. I'll just go off and flog myself now as penance.

It's still a really, really bad system.

How would you amend the system to make it superior?

How would you amend the system to make it superior?

You expect him to answer that when he apparently does not understand how it works in the first place? :tongue:

It's still a really, really bad system.
*shrug* its served us well enough for over 200 years.

All this is pretty clear to me in hindsight. When I first heard the McCain campaign was going negative, I thought they had the catchier story. A terrorist, hanging out with the Democratic nominee? People, I thought, are going to want to hear about that. And some of them haven't yet; not everyone pays attention during the primaries.

What I really didn't account for was Obama's masterful linking of the Keating Five to the economic crisis. I assumed that the scandal was too complex for the American people as a whole to understand, but if it's linked to the current state of the economy, they don't need to understand it to be worried about it. And another 700-point loss for the Dow just feeds into that, regardless of how strong the connection actually is.

If McCain keeps playing this game, look for Obama to run an ad about him not releasing his medical records next. The prospect of a President Sarah Palin, I think, worries more Americans right now than do Barack Obama's old acquaintances.
it is surprising. i thought that both stories would sink like a stone. as they really should.

some medical group already DID an ad on mccains health. it played a few times here in new mexico but the big outlets have refused to play it and i think its been pulled completely.

You expect him to answer that when he apparently does not understand how it works in the first place? :tongue:

No, I don't, and that's my reason for asking the question.

It's still a really, really bad system.

Its certainly better than the British system.

yeah, what a failure this "50 state strategy" is. Are you going to win Texas, mister B. Hussein Osama? Huh? ARE YOU?

No, you're not, you won't win Texas. So much for your "50 state strategy". Maybe you should have named it "35 state strategy" instead, mister smart guy.

40, tops...

Yeah, he clearly meant he would win every state. Obviously. Anything less is a failure. But the Blue states will stay blue and the red states will stay red. Except they aren't doing that.

The unifying theme of this election is that NEITHER side should take anything or anyone for granted.

Yeah, he clearly meant he would win every state. Obviously. Anything less is a failure. But the Blue states will stay blue and the red states will stay red. Except they aren't doing that.

The unifying theme of this election is that NEITHER side should take anything or anyone for granted.

No, you got it wrong. Because of Obama's failed 50 state strategy, the Red states stay red and the blue states go red.


Duh.

The unifying theme of this election is that NEITHER side should take anything or anyone for granted.

You know, it's amazing how true this is. I think that if Senator Clinton had taken Obama seriously from the beginning and fought him seriously from the beginning, that it's very unlikely he would have won the nomination. Her most fatal mistake was assuming that she'd be the nominee from the beginning, and by the time she realized what was happening it was too late.

Anybody read this story (http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html) yet? Obama being a sweetheart to a random stranger, back when he was broke and a nobody, I think it will probably get some play.
And then expect to see the McSmear team into action, pointing out that the woman in question paid back the money and has since donated $100 to Obama's campaign.
"Oh NOES! He's accepting contributions from foreign countries! Norway is full of Viking TERRORISTS - he'll be letting all back in to rape and pillage!"

You know, it's amazing how true this is. I think that if Senator Clinton had taken Obama seriously from the beginning and fought him seriously from the beginning, that it's very unlikely he would have won the nomination. Her most fatal mistake was assuming that she'd be the nominee from the beginning, and by the time she realized what was happening it was too late.
i think you are right.

but who would have thought that a newbie black guy from illinois would be such a formidable opponent? she may as well have guarded against dennis kucinich.

You know, it's amazing how true this is. I think that if Senator Clinton had taken Obama seriously from the beginning and fought him seriously from the beginning, that it's very unlikely he would have won the nomination. Her most fatal mistake was assuming that she'd be the nominee from the beginning, and by the time she realized what was happening it was too late.

There's no doubt in my mind had she'd have been the nominee if she'd not tried to ride the 'front runner' wagon. But ultimately it's Obama's longview strategy that's serving him well now-the get out the vote advantage in the primaries is translating to an advantage in the general.

There's no doubt in my mind had she'd have been the nominee if she'd not tried to ride the 'front runner' wagon. But ultimately it's Obama's longview strategy that's serving him well now-the get out the vote advantage in the primaries is translating to an advantage in the general.

Obama has always been thinking about the Presidency. He viewed his campaign as part of his Presidency, not as a precursor. THAT is why he's winning.

Honestly, how can someone seperate the awful campaigns we've seen from people's judgment and leadership?

I did not include anything like this from Fox, because I couldn't find any maps or predictions on their site.
Gosh, I wonder why that is? ;)

There's no doubt in my mind had she'd have been the nominee if she'd not tried to ride the 'front runner' wagon. But ultimately it's Obama's longview strategy that's serving him well now-the get out the vote advantage in the primaries is translating to an advantage in the general.

Indeed.

I still remember Super Tuesday. When I first got to campus, I saw the entire student plaza plastered with Hillary signs, with supporters standing around urging people to vote for their candidate.
In the view of a traditional campaign, this looked great.

However, the reason all the signs that were put up were Hillary signs is that we had one solitary Obama sign left. Just one. They were in such high demand that we couldn't hold on to them!
Further, all of our volunteers were out going door to door and making phone calls, going through the supporter lists we'd carefully assembled in the previous months and making damn sure that those people got out and voted.

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.
http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-24.gif

I don't believe this. After all this time on NSG, you STILL haven't figured out that our system doesn't work that way? We're not a system like Australia. Our President is a very powerful figure--in many ways, possibly too powerful--and most ASSUREDLY sets the pace for everything. Congress is important, but in no way do they tell the President what to do all the time. (Though they do try a lot.)

Seriously, I shouldn't have to tell anyone who has a computer and can pay attention to even the lightest smattering of news this. God damn.

*shrug* its served us well enough for over 200 years.

though only just. it really is a shitty system.

though only just. it really is a shitty system.

There are much, MUCH worse liberal democratic systems out there though.


Like the British system.

There are much, MUCH worse liberal democratic systems out there though.


Like the British system.

well yeah, obviously

That is the worst system I have ever heard of.

And how many systems are you intimately familiar with? One? Your own?

Can you truly be objective that way?

though only just. it really is a shitty system.

How would you go about improving it? (I'm honestly curious, because I've gotten LOTS of different opinions on this and I really want yours, because while I don't always agree with you, you've got a keen eye for good sense.)

How would you go about improving it? (I'm honestly curious, because I've gotten LOTS of different opinions on this and I really want yours, because while I don't always agree with you, you've got a keen eye for good sense.)

I dont think there is a way to improve it tbh. Our democracy is an imperfect system, however our system is better than most of the other imperfect systems.


I like the French system of Government, minus how much power the president has.

Anyway, this is for a whole different thread, and if you want to make it, Ill be glad to go into more detail.

I dont think there is a way to improve it tbh. Our democracy is an imperfect system, however our system is better than most of the other imperfect systems.


I like the French system of Government, minus how much power the president has.

Anyway, this is for a whole different thread, and if you want to make it, Ill be glad to go into more detail.

Will do.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

This time, Obama really IS ahead in North Carolina! http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-dance_male.gif

I dont think there is a way to improve it tbh.
I'd like to see a proportional allocation of electoral votes per state. That would make it a lot fairer. It would mean there would be no state ignored by one of the two big parties. We wouldn't have the debacle of the entire presidency coming down to deciding upon a handful of hanging chads.

Only issue would be small states with only a couple of votes on offer might be ignored. But then most are already.

Question: Why in god's name do Americans have their ACTUAL election two years after their presidential election?

Yes. The House/Senate elections. The one that ACTUALLY DECIDES who's in power. As opposed to the presidential election, which decides which useless fucker is told what to do by the House for the next four years.

Wow, that explains a lot. Like why America is in total crap. Two year terms, what is that?

That is the worst system I have ever heard of.

It's still a really, really bad system.

Ferrous Oxide, I've noticed you doing this in other threads. Your requests for information on the American political system are posed in inflammatory terms. You don't debate and you don't back up your comments.

That's trolling. Cut it out, now.

(Yellow card, BTW, to remind you.)

Ferrous Oxide, I've noticed you doing this in other threads. Your requests for information on the American political system are posed in inflammatory terms. You don't debate and you don't back up your comments.

That's trolling. Cut it out, now.

(Yellow card, BTW, to remind you.)

Well, I'm outta here.

A question for the Americans.

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

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

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html

Here is an opinion piece about how the black vote may be helping Obama in some southern states.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html

Here is an opinion piece about how the black vote may be helping Obama in some southern states.

You need an opinion piece to tell you that black people are going to vote for Obama?

You need an opinion piece to tell you that black people are going to vote for Obama?

I have no idea, maybe, maybe not.

You need an opinion piece to tell you that black people are going to vote for Obama?

I thought you were leaving.

Well, I'm outta here.

I thought you were leaving.

I assumed I would. I normally do when I'm disrespected.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/in-georgia-small-improvements-in-black.html

Here is an opinion piece about how the black vote may be helping Obama in some southern states.

Well now that's interesting. It'll be interesting to just see what the results of the election are. All this anticipation is killing me.

Well now that's interesting. It'll be interesting to just see what the results of the election are. All this anticipation is killing me.

If you are being sarcastic fair enough, if not I say Meh I got bored with it 15 months ago. I was still in my first year of Uni when this race started, hell I hadn't even begun participating in these forums when this whole thing started, though the Blouman Empire had started up in RP back in late 2005.

If you are being sarcastic fair enough, if not I say Meh I got bored with it 15 months ago. I was still in my first year of Uni when this race started, hell I hadn't even begun participating in these forums when this whole thing started, though the Blouman Empire had started up in RP back in late 2005.

I've only started paying attention to the election in the last month or so, and the polls in the last few weeks, so I'm still interested in it.

I've only started paying attention to the election in the last month or so, and the polls in the last few weeks, so I'm still interested in it.

Ok, well you are in for a treat, I wish I had started this just recently but the stupid Australian media thought that the election became headline news 2 years ago.

Ok, well you are in for a treat, I wish I had started this just recently but the stupid Australian media thought that the election became headline news 2 years ago.

Ahh, but I do live in Australia, and I stopped listening to the radio or watching TV a few years ago. Except for the few good shows ABC has. This could be why my interest in the election is still somewhat sparked.

I assumed I would. I normally do when I'm disrespected.

http://www.thesunblog.com/sports/rodneydangerfield.jpg

Ahh, but I do live in Australia, and I stopped listening to the radio or watching TV a few years ago. Except for the few good shows ABC has. This could be why my interest in the election is still somewhat sparked.

I think you made the right choice (a story I saw on the news today should never have even been made yet alone filed), don't forget about SBS they have a few decent shows too.

I assumed I would. I normally do when I'm disrespected.

So being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else is disrespectful?

If you honestly think that, you're probably going to feel you're getting disrespected a lot, and not just here.

http://www.thesunblog.com/sports/rodneydangerfield.jpg

"I told my wife the truth. I told her I was seeing a psychiatrist. Then she told me the truth: that she was seeing a psychiatrist, two plumbers, and a bartender." -Rodney Dangerfield

"I told my wife the truth. I told her I was seeing a psychiatrist. Then she told me the truth: that she was seeing a psychiatrist, two plumbers, and a bartender." -Rodney Dangerfield

You know the best part about kids? Making them.

I assumed I would. I normally do when I'm disrespected.

Yeah, well when you act disrespectful towards people, don't be incredibly surprised when they return the favor.

I assumed I would. I normally do when I'm disrespected.

Grow up.

Alright, here's some latest numbers and info. The CNN electoral map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) shows the following:

States safe for Obama (IE roughly 10% margin or better) - 177 electoral votes
States leaning Obama (IE a lead outside the margin of error) - 87

Those numbers for John McCain are 125 and 49 respectively

This means that, counting the leaning states, the electoral vote count stands at 264 to 174. Neither candidate can claim a safe lead in sufficient states to win.

So, CNN has exactly 100 electoral votes counted as "tossup" in 7 states. Tossup states tend to be those where a candidate's lead is within the margin of error, or only RECENTLY went out of it, with sufficient undecideds and unsures to make it difficult to say how it will play out. Those states are as follows:

Nevada - 5 votes
Colorado - 9 votes
Missouri - 11 votes
Virginia - 13 votes
North Carolina - 15 votes
Ohio - 20 votes
Florida - 27 votes

Now you notice Obama has 264 relatively safe Electoral votes, he needs 270 to win, and the smallest state here is 5 votes. Which means of the 7 tossup states, McCain needs to win each and every one of them.

So, how are those states polling? Checking Rasmussen poll data:

Nevada – no recent Rasmussen data, Obama +1 from electoral-vote
Colorado – Obama +6
Missouri – Obama +3
Virginia – Obama +2
North Carolina – Obama +6
Ohio – McCain +1 (another poll says Obama +5)
Florida – Obama +7


So, McCain needs to win all 7 states, and right now, he has at best a statistically insignificant lead in ONE of them, with Obama winning in NC, OH, Fl, and CO outside the margin of error.

To get this back on topic:

Palin's tax return woes

Source (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/tax-profs-agree.html)
Tax Profs Agree: Gov. Palin's Tax Returns Are Wrong

Jack Bogdanski (Lewis & Clark) & Bryan Camp (Texas Tech) have independently reviewed the tax issues raised by the release of Gov. Palin's 2006 and 2007 tax returns and financial disclosure form, as well as the remarkable opinion letter issued from Washington D.C. tax lawyer Roger M. Olsen. Jack and Bryan conclude that there are serious errors in Gov. Palin's returns as filed and that she and her husband owe tens of thousands of dollars in additional taxes.

Jack Bogdanski, There's No Debate: Palins Owe Thousands in Back Taxes:

There is no serious debate (at least, none that has been brought to our attention) about the fact that at least the amounts paid for the children's travel -- $24,728.83 in 2007, according to the Washington Post -- are taxable. The campaign's tax lawyer has got at least that much of the law, and perhaps more, wrong. ... The Palins, who had their tax returns done by HR Block, simply got it wrong. And the fact that the state payroll office got it wrong, too, doesn't erase the Palins' unpaid tax liability.

Bryan Camp, A Brief Analysis of Governor Palin's Tax Returns for 2006 and 2007:

The release of an opinion letter by attorney Roger M. Olsen dated September 30, 2008, has stirred up the pot once again about the accuracy of Sarah and Todd Palin’s 2006 and 2007 tax returns. Not only that, but Mr. Olsen’s letter raises a couple of new issues.

This paper focuses on five problems: three raised in the tax returns and two new ones raised by Mr. Olsen’s letter. Here’s a summary of the five problems and my conclusions, for those who want to cut to the chase. My analysis will follow.

1. The Palins did not report as income some $17,000 that Governor Palin’s employer (the State of Alaska) paid her as an “allowance” for her travel. Can they do that? Yes, most likely.
2. The Palins did not report as income some $43,000 that the State of Alaska paid the Governor as an “allowance” for her husband and children’s travel. Can they do that? No, most likely not.
3. The Palins deducted $9,000 on their 2007 return, claiming it was a loss from Mr. Palin’s snow machine racing activity. Can they do that? Most likely not, but more info could make the deduction OK. If any of the above issues goes against the Palins they then risk getting hit with the section 6662 penalty for “negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.”
4. Can the Palins avoid the section 6662 negligence penalty by claiming that they reasonably relied either (a) on the W-2’s sent to them by their employer, which did not reflect either the $17,000 or the $43,000, or (b) on their tax return preparer H&R Block, or (c) on Mr. Olsen’s opinion letter dated September 30, 2008? The three reliance defenses are unlikely to succeed, but more info may make the (b) defense a good one.
5. Does Mr. Olsen have any exposure to sanctions by the IRS because of his letter? I believe Mr. Olsen’s letter probably violates 31 C.F.R. section 10.35. If so, he would be exposed to possible sanctions from the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility.

That money she got for working at home is coming back to bite her in the ass.

Alright, here's some latest numbers and info. The CNN electoral map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) shows the following:

States safe for Obama (IE roughly 10% margin or better) - 177 electoral votes
States leaning Obama (IE a lead outside the margin of error) - 87

Those numbers for John McCain are 125 and 49 respectively

This means that, counting the leaning states, the electoral vote count stands at 264 to 174. Neither candidate can claim a safe lead in sufficient states to win.

So, CNN has exactly 100 electoral votes counted as "tossup" in 7 states. Tossup states tend to be those where a candidate's lead is within the margin of error, or only RECENTLY went out of it, with sufficient undecideds and unsures to make it difficult to say how it will play out. Those states are as follows:

Nevada - 5 votes
Colorado - 9 votes
Missouri - 11 votes
Virginia - 13 votes
North Carolina - 15 votes
Ohio - 20 votes
Florida - 27 votes

Now you notice Obama has 264 relatively safe Electoral votes, he needs 270 to win, and the smallest state here is 5 votes. Which means of the 7 tossup states, McCain needs to win each and every one of them.

So, how are those states polling? Checking Rasmussen poll data:

Nevada – no recent Rasmussen data, Obama +1 from electoral-vote
Colorado – Obama +6
Missouri – Obama +3
Virginia – Obama +2
North Carolina – Obama +6
Ohio – McCain +1 (another poll says Obama +5)
Florida – Obama +7


So, McCain needs to win all 7 states, and right now, he has at best a statistically insignificant lead in ONE of them, with Obama winning in NC, OH, Fl, and CO outside the margin of error.

Awesome.

To get this back on topic:

Palin's tax return woes



That money she got for working at home is coming back to bite her in the ass.

More awesome.

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


Obama is now TIED with his convention bump.

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


Obama is now TIED with his convention bump.

A statistic I noticed from the Gallup site that seems FAR more important (and, unfortunately, kicks Canuck's longest running complaint to the kerb) is the 'partisan' vote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candidate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

86% of registered Democrats are supporting Obama. Only 10% are supporting McCain (compared to 88% of Republicans supporting McCain and 8% supporting Obama) - making something of a lie of the alleged election spoiler 'Democrat turncoat' concept, that some have argued was going to cost the Democrats the election if they picked Obama.

Compared to June 9th when only 78% of registered Democrats professed support for Obama (that's an 8% rise), and a full 13% professed preference for McCain (that's a 3% drop), it's a pretty significant result.

(NB: In the same period: McCain has gained 4% of the 'partisan' vote, and 1% less preferred Obama (that's a 1% drop)).

A statistic I noticed from the Gallup site that seems FAR more important (and, unfortunately, kicks Canuck's longest running complaint to the kerb) is the 'partisan' vote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candidate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

86% of registered Democrats are supporting Obama. Only 10% are supporting McCain (compared to 88% of Republicans supporting McCain and 8% supporting Obama) - making something of a lie of the alleged election spoiler 'Democrat turncoat' concept, that some have argued was going to cost the Democrats the election if they picked Obama.

Compared to June 9th when only 78% of registered Democrats professed support for Obama (that's an 8% rise), and a full 13% professed preference for McCain (that's a 3% drop), it's a pretty significant result.

(NB: In the same period: McCain has gained 4% of the 'partisan' vote, and 1% less preferred Obama (that's a 1% drop)).
To be honest, I'm not sure CH was entirely wrong. Plenty of "turncoats" could have been deterred by McCain's choice of a VP and her subsequent dismantling in the public discourse.

To be honest, I'm not sure CH was entirely wrong. Plenty of "turncoats" could have been deterred by McCain's choice of a VP and her subsequent dismantling in the public discourse.

I wasn't saying CH was entirely wrong. There is always going to be some migration of 'partisan' votes, and the Obama/Clinton split was going to have SOME effect, at SOME point.

But if you look at the June figures, 13% of those registered as Democrats were saying they'd switch sides - and that figure hasn't been climbing, the Democratic party hasn't been racking-up a mounting debt of partisans to the opposition. The Chicken-Little political prophecy just never materialised.

Alright, here's some latest numbers and info. The CNN electoral map (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/) shows the following:

States safe for Obama (IE roughly 10% margin or better) - 177 electoral votes
States leaning Obama (IE a lead outside the margin of error) - 87

Those numbers for John McCain are 125 and 49 respectively

This means that, counting the leaning states, the electoral vote count stands at 264 to 174. Neither candidate can claim a safe lead in sufficient states to win.

So, CNN has exactly 100 electoral votes counted as "tossup" in 7 states. Tossup states tend to be those where a candidate's lead is within the margin of error, or only RECENTLY went out of it, with sufficient undecideds and unsures to make it difficult to say how it will play out. Those states are as follows:

Nevada - 5 votes
Colorado - 9 votes
Missouri - 11 votes
Virginia - 13 votes
North Carolina - 15 votes
Ohio - 20 votes
Florida - 27 votes

Now you notice Obama has 264 relatively safe Electoral votes, he needs 270 to win, and the smallest state here is 5 votes. Which means of the 7 tossup states, McCain needs to win each and every one of them.

So, how are those states polling? Checking Rasmussen poll data:

Nevada – no recent Rasmussen data, Obama +1 from electoral-vote
Colorado – Obama +6
Missouri – Obama +3
Virginia – Obama +2
North Carolina – Obama +6
Ohio – McCain +1 (another poll says Obama +5)
Florida – Obama +7


So, McCain needs to win all 7 states, and right now, he has at best a statistically insignificant lead in ONE of them, with Obama winning in NC, OH, Fl, and CO outside the margin of error.

If it's a tie (269 each), Obama wins, because the democrat controlled house decides the winner in such an event (as far as I know). So yeah, McBush would need to win every one of those toss-up states, which really isn't looking likely.

If it's a tie (269 each), Obama wins, because the democrat controlled house decides the winner in such an event (as far as I know). So yeah, McBush would need to win every one of those toss-up states, which really isn't looking likely.

it wouldn't even BE a tie, Obama needs 4 to win and the smallest state there is 5.

The most realistic scenario for a tie is he wins Nevada, loses all the other toss up states, and loses New Hampshire. Very unlikely.

it wouldn't even BE a tie, Obama needs 4 to win and the smallest state there is 5.

The most realistic scenario for a tie is he wins Nevada, loses all the other toss up states, and loses New Hampshire. Very unlikely.

Guh? The CNN map has him with 264. If he takes Nevada and nothing else, that gives us a 269-269 tie.

Guh? The CNN map has him with 264. If he takes Nevada and nothing else, that gives us a 269-269 tie.

wow, I really can't fucking add tonight. Yes, you're right.

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/06/2008-10-06_new_details_on_larry_flynts_sarah_palin_-1.html

After the Daily News reported last week that Larry Flynt is producing a porno starring a faux Sarah Palin, TMZ has new details about the satirical skin flick.

Hustler Video's X-rated flick, "Nailin' Paylin," features adult actress Lisa Ann in the Alaskan governor's signature specs and up-do, who "will be nailing the Russians who come knocking on her back-door."

In a flashback sequence, "young Paylin's creationist college professor will explain a 'big bang' theory even she can't deny!" Radar Online also posted an excerpt of the script, which includes a late-night visit from the tanning bed repairman.

Alas, there is also a three-way with Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice look-alikes. Actress Nina Hartley, 49, has been cast as Clinton.

Flynt, an iconoclast and freedom of speech advocate, is a staunch liberal who accused the Bush administration of violating the U.S. Bill of Rights in his 2005 tome "Sex, Lies and Politics: The Naked Truth." He was portrayed by Woody Harrelson in the 1996 film "The People vs. Larry Flynt."

The Palin porno's script excerpt has "Paylin" spouting topical, tongue-and-cheek lines such as, "Are you asking me if I know what a morning-after pill is" Because I totally do! I'll get back to ya with the specifics," riffing off of her shaky interview Katie Couric.

Rumors of the adult movie surfaced after an ad calling for look-alikes of the Republican vice presidential nominee hit craigslist following her speech at the Republican National Convention. "Looking for a Sarah Palin look-alike for an adult film to be shot in the next 10 days," read the ad, offering $3,000 for the part.

The video is being fast-tracked for release before the election.

This election is getting funnier every day.

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/10/06/2008-10-06_new_details_on_larry_flynts_sarah_palin_-1.html



This election is getting funnier every day.

That's indescribably tacky.

That's indescribably tacky.

And as predictable as the sunrise...

And as predictable as the sunrise...

Yeah, I'm waiting for the October Surprises.

A statistic I noticed from the Gallup site that seems FAR more important (and, unfortunately, kicks Canuck's longest running complaint to the kerb) is the 'partisan' vote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109042/Candidate-Support-Political-Party.aspx

86% of registered Democrats are supporting Obama. Only 10% are supporting McCain (compared to 88% of Republicans supporting McCain and 8% supporting Obama) - making something of a lie of the alleged election spoiler 'Democrat turncoat' concept, that some have argued was going to cost the Democrats the election if they picked Obama.

Compared to June 9th when only 78% of registered Democrats professed support for Obama (that's an 8% rise), and a full 13% professed preference for McCain (that's a 3% drop), it's a pretty significant result.
You are suggesting that my argument has been "kicked to the curb", based on polling data to date. You know and I know that the only way that true validation comes on election day.

Although my premise could be wrong at this moment, it still could be right at the end of vote tabluation.

You are suggesting that my argument has been "kicked to the curb", based on polling data to date. You know and I know that the only way that true validation comes on election day.

Although my premise could be wrong at this moment, it still could be right at the end of vote tabluation.

Weloo, of course. Up until the actual counting of the vote, its a mathematical possibility that we might ned up with neither McCain nor Obama as president. But, its not odds you'd want to take.

There are going to be a few people that vote McCain just because the Democrat ticket has less vaginas on it than the Republican one. There'll be people who vote somewhere other than Republican just because old men shouldn't be president. And there'll be some people who vote Republican because they will never vote for a black man.

We know these things happen - the question is, in what proportion. And - looking at the polls on partisan voting preferences, the spectre of people crossing party lines just because Obama got the nod rather than Hillary, is just that... a shadow. Insubstantial. Not even statistical.

You are suggesting that my argument has been "kicked to the curb", based on polling data to date. You know and I know that the only way that true validation comes on election day.

Although my premise could be wrong at this moment, it still could be right at the end of vote tabluation.

Hey, I was wondering when you were going to turn up!

Since you're such a fan of Palin, will you be watching the porno made in tribute to her when it comes out later this month?

To be honest, I'm not sure CH was entirely wrong. Plenty of "turncoats" could have been deterred by McCain's choice of a VP and her subsequent dismantling in the public discourse.
Another possibility could be that the stock market collapse and bailout have resulted in many turning to the Democrats.

The same is happening to the governing Conservatives in the election polls (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html)here. They have dropped almost 7 points in two weeks, mirroring the stock market collapsing here.

I hope that the Republicans won't change votes on the computer machines that pro-republican companies made. :(

This seems interesting (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/). Obama only needs on swing state to win.

Hey, I was wondering when you were going to turn up!

Since you're such a fan of Palin, will you be watching the porno made in tribute to her when it comes out later this month?
It is sexist comments such as these that has tarnished my vision of todays Democrats. :(

You are suggesting that my argument has been "kicked to the curb", based on polling data to date. You know and I know that the only way that true validation comes on election day.


I find this statement highly amusing given that you posted the post nomination bump McCain's ticket after he nominated Palin as proof that Obama would lose for certain.

Whats this all about? McCain better be careful. :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ed-k1xOCsMs

It is sexist comments such as these that has tarnished my vision of todays Democrats. :(

Hey, I'm not the one making the porno. I just heard about its existance today. I was meerly asking if you were going to watch it. Nothing sexist about that at all.

Hey, I'm not the one making the porno. I just heard about its existance today. I was meerly asking if you were going to watch it. Nothing sexist about that at all.

SEXIST! omg u pig! I feel sullied and unusual.

Another possibility could be that the stock market collapse and bailout have resulted in many turning to the Democrats.

The same is happening to the governing Conservatives in the election polls (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html)here. They have dropped almost 7 points in two weeks, mirroring the stock market collapsing here.
Ah. I see you've already making an excuse why all your predictions and statements are proven false.
"They would have been right, if not for the financial crisis!"

Oh course they would have. You've got the sagacity of Cassandra you do. Shame that the markets worked to screw everything up for you and forced - yes, FORCED - people into voting Democrat against their will and better judgment.

Ah. I see you've already making an excuse why all your predictions and statements are proven false.
"They would have been right, if not for the financial crisis!"

Oh course they would have. You've got the sagacity of Cassandra you do. Shame that the markets worked to screw everything up for you and forced - yes, FORCED - people into voting Democrat against their will and better judgment.

Thus following this logic the Free Market is obviously a Commie spy dedicated to the defeat of the Republican Party and establishing the evil socialised healthcare.

I find this statement highly amusing given that you posted the post nomination bump McCain's ticket after he nominated Palin as proof that Obama would lose for certain.
I stated that? I don't believe so.

Hey, I'm not the one making the porno. I just heard about its existance today. I was meerly asking if you were going to watch it. Nothing sexist about that at all.
The way you presented the question, then yes it definitely was a sexist comment.

The way you presented the question, then yes it definitely was a sexist comment.

I'm being told I'm sexist by the guy who was going to support the Dems because of Clinton but has changed to supporting the GOP because of Palin, simply because they are female?

It was not a sexist comment. It was an inquiry as to whether you will be seeing a movie made about Palin as a result of her VP nomination. If a similiar movie were made about McCain, I would have asked the same question. However, I doubt such a movie would have been made about McCain, simply because of the sexism of hollywood, or perhaps, just inherrent sexism in the general public. Who knows.

I'm being told I'm sexist by the guy who was going to support the Dems because of Clinton but has changed to supporting the GOP because of Palin, simply because they are female?

It was not a sexist comment. It was an inquiry as to whether you will be seeing a movie made about Palin as a result of her VP nomination. If a similiar movie were made about McCain, I would have asked the same question. However, I doubt such a movie would have been made about McCain, simply because of the sexism of hollywood, or perhaps, just inherrent sexism in the general public. Who knows.

1- Thanks!

2- If a similar movie were made about McCain I'd ask "Why, God, WHY?".

I'm being told I'm sexist by the guy who was going to support the Dems because of Clinton but has changed to supporting the GOP because of Palin, simply because they are female?
That is an entirely erroneous statement.

It was not a sexist comment. It was an inquiry as to whether you will be seeing a movie made about Palin as a result of her VP nomination. If a similiar movie were made about McCain, I would have asked the same question. However, I doubt such a movie would have been made about McCain, simply because of the sexism of hollywood, or perhaps, just inherrent sexism in the general public. Who knows.
You are trying to squirm off the hook to no avail. The manner in which you asked the question was totally sexist in nature.

You are trying to squirm off the hook to no avail. The manner in which you asked the question was totally sexist in nature.

The question was sexist and stupid and quite probably a joke, and it's clear that the source of the sexism-about-unrelated-porn-joke argument is totally unrelated to the actual argument at hand.

Speaking of which, can we blow off any further discussion of porn sexism and return to the topic at hand? Thanks.

sexist

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

INIGO MONTOYA! Is that you? :D

Prepare to die!

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

INIGO MONTOYA! Is that you? :D

Prepare to die!

You have an overdeveloped sense of movie quotation. That might get you hurt some day.

It is sexist comments such as these that has tarnished my vision of todays Democrats. :(

Oh, you poor thing who was never really a Democrat, isn't now a Democrat, and who doesn't seem to know that much about Democrats.

Have you Googled any good reasons for supporting Nader yet?

You have an overdeveloped sense of movie quotation. That might get you hurt some day.

I spent a year building up an immunity to movie cliches!

As things seem quiet, could someone please sate my curiosity: fivethirtyeight.com lists, in its demographic stats, "Starbucks/Wal-Mart".

I figure it's supposed to be some sort of proportion of white-collar vs blue-collar, but why is Starbucks deemed whitecollar? (I'm not asking about quality, so don't tell me it's because the coffee is great.)

As things seem quiet, could someone please sate my curiosity: fivethirtyeight.com lists, in its demographic stats, "Starbucks/Wal-Mart".

I figure it's supposed to be some sort of proportion of white-collar vs blue-collar, but why is Starbucks deemed whitecollar? (I'm not asking about quality, so don't tell me it's because the coffee is great.)

I suspect blue collar workers question why they might pay $2 for a cup of joe when they get unlimited refills at their local diner.

As things seem quiet, could someone please sate my curiosity: fivethirtyeight.com lists, in its demographic stats, "Starbucks/Wal-Mart".

I figure it's supposed to be some sort of proportion of white-collar vs blue-collar, but why is Starbucks deemed whitecollar? (I'm not asking about quality, so don't tell me it's because the coffee is great.)

Because it's not cheap, in fact it's rather pricey. Paying $5-$8 for a cup of coffee there (depending on location) compared to spending $1 or $2 on a cup at Tim Horton's or somewhere similar. That's my understanding, anyway.

This thread is a waste of time, and so is the election. Everybody knows Obama's going to win.

I hope you are right.

You are suggesting that my argument has been "kicked to the curb", based on polling data to date. You know and I know that the only way that true validation comes on election day.

Although my premise could be wrong at this moment, it still could be right at the end of vote tabluation.

Ah, the Pancake Tuesday defense once again. Are you channeling Jonnie Cochran?

I stated that? I don't believe so.

No, you made comments about Palimania and how she was getting stronger. I said that every day she gets weaker and weaker. I stated that every interview she does makes her look worse. You said something smug like "sure she's getting weaker." Care to admit you were wrong there?

I stated that? I don't believe so.

Not in those exact terms, I concede. You however, claimed that picking her helped McCain party, to which you gloated about Palimania here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012110&postcount=333

And here, you use polling data to to further the abovementioned claims, though you did at least admit that the election had much further to go.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13994386&postcount=2

But then again, why are you using polling data to support your claims to begin with, when you later argue that "the only way that true validation comes on election day." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14080524#post14080524)

No, you made comments about Palimania and how she was getting stronger. I said that every day she gets weaker and weaker. I stated that every interview she does makes her look worse. You said something smug like "sure she's getting weaker." Care to admit you were wrong there?

I have the links in the above posts Liuzzo. Let's see if he edits them or tries to squirm out of it.

As things seem quiet, could someone please sate my curiosity: fivethirtyeight.com lists, in its demographic stats, "Starbucks/Wal-Mart".

I figure it's supposed to be some sort of proportion of white-collar vs blue-collar, but why is Starbucks deemed whitecollar? (I'm not asking about quality, so don't tell me it's because the coffee is great.)

It's the two ends of a cliche, the 'latte sipping elites' and the under educated working class that does their shopping at Wal*Mart. Now, of course, the reality is that there are latte sippers that go to Wal*Mart and Wal*Mart shoppers who like a trendy cup of Joe, but it's essentially a breakdown of class and education done with caricature.

Not in those exact terms, I concede. You however, claimed that picking her helped McCain party, to which you gloated about Palimania here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012110&postcount=333
It wasn't so much about gloating. It was more about responding to a claim that Palin was getting "weaker and weaker", when in fact, at that time, she was getting stronger.

And here, you use polling data to to further the abovementioned claims, though you did at least admit that the election had much further to go.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13994386&postcount=2
It was thrown out for debate. Polls are debated back and forth in these threads, hence the name of this thread being "Polls,Pundits, & Popcorn".

But then again, why are you using polling data to support your claims to begin with, when you later argue that "the only way that true validation comes on election day." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14080524#post14080524)
As many have noted, polls are only guide posts and in this election and in the primaries, the swings have been wild and furious at times. The fact remains is that "true validation comes on election day".

Then we can rehash what was right and what was wrong?

Thanks for digging up the posts. :)

I suspect blue collar workers question why they might pay $2 for a cup of joe when they get unlimited refills at their local diner.


Well, I was figuring Starbucks was just a takeaway chain, like Maccas, only coffee, and hence blue collar too.

However, now I've Wikied it I see it's apparently -- dun-dun-daaah! -- middle class, or yuppy, so I see why it interests pollsters this year.

(Though it still sounds a bit faddish rather than actually good. But who am I to judge, who lives somewhere too insignificant for Starbucks?)

But who am I to judge, who lives somewhere too insignificant for Starbucks?

Join the club. And mine is one of the 50 biggest cities in the world!

(Though it still sounds a bit faddish rather than actually good. But who am I to judge, who lives somewhere too insignificant for Starbucks?)

It's not all that great. We got one a year or two ago in my little town (of 30.000 people) but I still prefer Tim Horton's.

As many have noted, polls are only guide posts and in this election and in the primaries, the swings have been wild and furious at times. The fact remains is that "true validation comes on election day".

And if that's the case, why are you using polls, if they are useless as indicators of real likelihood of election performance, to begin with?

It wasn't so much about gloating. It was more about responding to a claim that Palin was getting "weaker and weaker", when in fact, at that time, she was getting stronger.


It was thrown out for debate. Polls are debated back and forth in these threads, hence the name of this thread being "Polls,Pundits, & Popcorn".


As many have noted, polls are only guide posts and in this election and in the primaries, the swings have been wild and furious at times. The fact remains is that "true validation comes on election day".

Then we can rehash what was right and what was wrong?

Thanks for digging up the posts. :)

What, she wasn't weaker that day. At that point I predicted she was getting weaker. You claimed she was not. I presented a poll showing her favorability ratings going down. I told you I would follow up and I have. She is getting weaker. Every day she is out there she gets beat down. Now she has stretched to bring back up Ayers and Wright. All the while forgetting we have "The Google" to find her association with a separatist movement. More specifically, the "First Dude" has a lot of connections to these people. They called for secession from America and the leader said "I will not be burried under her (America) damn flag!" She gets weaker every day and I predicted it before it was a trend. I'm not clairvoyant, just a little ahead of the curve.

And if that's the case, why are you using polls, if they are useless as indicators of real likelihood of election performance, to begin with?
I guess the main problem is that Americans seem to be addicted to daily polling. Whether it is positive or negative, the spin masters jump all over the latest polls and point to them as if they have concrete relevance. I confess that I have on occaision been swayed by the resultant rhetoric on both sides.

The fact remains that the only true poll, if there is such a thing in the US, is the one counted on election day.

Here is an interesting story about a Republican candidate (Gerald Ford) who was 33 points behind the Democrat candidate (Jimmy Carter) back in 1976, and ended up losing by only 2 points.

The Spirit of '76 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/663xubeb.asp)

The story details some of the similarities of then and now.

I guess the main problem is that Americans seem to be addicted to daily polling. Whether it is positive or negative, the spin masters jump all over the latest polls and point to them as if they have concrete relevance. I confess that I have on occaision been swayed by the resultant rhetoric on both sides.

The fact remains that the only true poll, if there is such a thing in the US, is the one counted on election day.

Here is an interesting story about a Republican candidate (Gerald Ford) who was 33 points behind the Democrat candidate (Jimmy Carter) back in 1976, and ended up losing by only 2 points.

The Spirit of '76 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/663xubeb.asp)

The story details some of the similarities of then and now.

Three months ago I recall you expounding on how the polls clearly showed that Hillary was the one true hope in the "states that matter" and Obama would lose. The polls said so, very clearly.

And if that's the case, why are you using polls, if they are useless as indicators of real likelihood of election performance, to begin with?

silly silly boy. Polls are only an inaccurate methodology when they disagree with him.

silly silly boy. Polls are only an inaccurate methodology when they disagree with him.

The only article he can find to support his claims is from Weekly Standard, which is owned by.. drumroll please: Rupert Murdoch.

Three months ago I recall you expounding on how the polls clearly showed that Hillary was the one true hope in the "states that matter" and Obama would lose. The polls said so, very clearly.
And if Obama holds on to win this thing on election day, then I will have been proven wrong, but not until then.

The only article he can find to support his claims is from Weekly Standard, which is owned by.. drumroll please: Rupert Murdoch.
Wiki backs up the claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#1976_presidential_election) of Ford being down 33 points:

Democratic nominee and former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter campaigned as an outsider and reformer, gaining support from voters dismayed by the Watergate scandal and Nixon pardon. After the Democratic National Convention, he held a huge 33-point lead over Ford in the polls. However, as the campaign continued the race tightened, and by election day the polls showed the race as too close to call.

I guess the main problem is that Americans seem to be addicted to daily polling. Whether it is positive or negative, the spin masters jump all over the latest polls and point to them as if they have concrete relevance. I confess that I have on occaision been swayed by the resultant rhetoric on both sides.

The fact remains that the only true poll, if there is such a thing in the US, is the one counted on election day.

Here is an interesting story about a Republican candidate (Gerald Ford) who was 33 points behind the Democrat candidate (Jimmy Carter) back in 1976, and ended up losing by only 2 points.

The Spirit of '76 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/663xubeb.asp)

The story details some of the similarities of then and now.

A couple of things I noticed in the article.

1. Carter won. If you're arguing Obama is going to win but not by much. Well, that's fine with all of us. He wins is all that matters. Carter also one by over 10% of the electoral vote. That's a dramatic victory.

2. They suggested Carter's support was thin. That's not true of Obama's support. Obama's support is deep and it's been shown to be relatively unswayed by such things.

3. Obama and McCain don't have the same money. Obama has much more money.

4. They aren't really making an argument that polling isn't accurate. They're making an argument that you can make a comeback, which they nearly did. No one is arguing that it can't be done, but only that McCain doesn't know how to do it.

5. That was mid-July. This is polling 25 days prior to the election. The significance of the fact that most of the events that normally turn an election have already happened is apparently lost on you.

6. Carter began the race in a lead that slowly narrowed. Obama began the race with a lead that has been virtually unchanged in over half a year.

7. What you're describing is much more comparable to Kerry. Both Kerry and Carter were running against unpopular incumbants with better name recognition. Both had about the same amount of money. Both allowed their support to steadily slip away. Both had very slim support primarily based on dislike for the incumbant. Both did not particularly excite people.

Obama is supported by a lot of people who are very excited about his candidacy. As you've pointed out, this isn't true for Obama at all. In fact, you've used the fact that people are really excited about the Obama Presidency as an insult with frequency and thus debunked the very basis for the Carter comparison.

Look around. When all you've got is "well, once this one guy who wasn't similar at all made a pretty good comeback" and "stop looking at the evidence and listen to my gut", you've lost.

McCain's not staging a comeback. His desperate attempts to do so are transparent.

And if Obama holds on to win this thing on election day, then I will have been proven wrong, but not until then.

You've been proven wrong repeatedly. The pancake Tuesday fallacy is just that.

Yes, there are things that can happen that will cause him to lose, however, the evidence that Obama's strategies are working is overwhelming. Claiming otherwise makes you wrong regardless of some sudden gamechanger happening or not.

This has been your flaw all along. You keep shifting the goalposts or, worse, simply don't understand what goalposts any rational person would expect you to use.

When you make claims that are predictive and you base them on faulty arguments, they are faulty claims. It doesn't matter if you happen to end up right.

"I claim that next person to win the lottery is going to be black because the last two people to win have been white so odds are it won't be a white person again."

It won't matter if the person who wins the lottery is black, you'll still be wrong. And no amount of arguing "we won't know till the lottery if I'm right or not" will change that the very basis for your argument has been thoroughly shown to be incorrect.

Wiki backs up the claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#1976_presidential_election) of Ford being down 33 points:

Your claim was challenged, not his claim. Pay attention.

And if Obama holds on to win this thing on election day, then I will have been proven wrong, but not until then.

Interestingly, if we accept your argument that polls and statistical analysis are worthless, and only election day results matter, then you can never be proven right-- because we can never see if Hillary would have won.

Wiki backs up the claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford#1976_presidential_election) of Ford being down 33 points:

As your own source said...

Democratic nominee and former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter campaigned as an outsider and reformer, gaining support from voters dismayed by the Watergate scandal and Nixon pardon. After the Democratic National Convention, he held a huge 33-point lead over Ford in the polls. However, as the campaign continued the race tightened, and by election day the polls showed the race as too close to call.

As you tried to make out, it was as though he was 33% down one day, 2% down the next. This was not the case. It seems as though he grew in popularity over time, bringing the race to a close finish. Nothing unusual about that. It's happened before. Perhaps not from such a low rating at one point, but whatever.

However, Obama's lead has grown significantly since the GOP convention. For what you're saying to happen, Obama's lead would sink over the next month. But, Obama has had a solid lead over McBush throughout the entire campaign. Whereas the Gore and Kerry elections were always close in the polls.

I guess the main problem is that Americans seem to be addicted to daily polling.

Hardly, given how often you quote poll data to back up your increasingly policy and ability unrelated arguments, which fail to impress the actual Americans on this board.

If anything, this claim seems to apply more to you than anyone else here.


Whether it is positive or negative, the spin masters jump all over the latest polls and point to them as if they have concrete relevance.

You mean like you've been doing on this thread?


The fact remains that the only true poll, if there is such a thing in the US, is the one counted on election day.

Then explain why you, and you personally, resort to polling data to explain your positions, if you think they don't matter. In fact, explain why you're doing so again in this very post.

Stop evading the question. You will answer it, without evasion or prevarication CH, one way or another.

Stop evading the question. You will answer it, without evasion or prevarication CH, one way or another.

Even his evasiveness can offer plenty of answers. Clearly he's throwing a tantrum that first Hillary Clinton wasn't chosen to be in either of the two spots and second that his spiteful desire for the continuation of the Bushevik Revolution in the form of a McCain/Palin victory is slipping down further and further from probability.

Even his evasiveness can offer plenty of answers. Clearly he's throwing a tantrum that first Hillary Clinton wasn't chosen to be in either of the two spots and second that his spiteful desire for the continuation of the Bushevik Revolution in the form of a McCain/Palin victory is slipping down further and further from probability.

I read it as he really wants McCain to win. Clinton would have had a difficult time in the general. Frankly the Clinton name is very divisive in this country, and there's no lack of ammunition to use against her. Hillary on the other hand threw every accusation she could at Obama, by the time the general started it had all been done. It's hard to get anything to stick to him now. CH's continual denial of the way the wind is blowing to me reeks of someone who wanted Hillary to get the Democratic nod so McCain would have won.

As your own source said...

As you tried to make out, it was as though he was 33% down one day, 2% down the next.
Ummmm no I did not, and if you read the article that I sourced, you would see the time frame.

It seems as though he grew in popularity over time, bringing the race to a close finish. Nothing unusual about that. It's happened before. Perhaps not from such a low rating at one point, but whatever.
The fact remains that with the volatility in the polls this year, Obama's current lead is certainly not insurmountable, and I used that story as proof that huge leads can evapourate.

However, Obama's lead has grown significantly since the GOP convention. For what you're saying to happen, Obama's lead would sink over the next month.
Which is entirely possible?

But, Obama has had a solid lead over McBush throughout the entire campaign.
Not true.

Whereas the Gore and Kerry elections were always close in the polls.
Relatively so (http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm), yes, and certainly less volatile.

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

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

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

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

The one that shows Obama winning.

The one that shows Obama winning.

Which looks like... all of them.

I guess the main problem is that Americans seem to be addicted to daily polling. Whether it is positive or negative, the spin masters jump all over the latest polls and point to them as if they have concrete relevance. I confess that I have on occaision been swayed by the resultant rhetoric on both sides.

The fact remains that the only true poll, if there is such a thing in the US, is the one counted on election day.

Here is an interesting story about a Republican candidate (Gerald Ford) who was 33 points behind the Democrat candidate (Jimmy Carter) back in 1976, and ended up losing by only 2 points.

The Spirit of '76 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/663xubeb.asp)

The story details some of the similarities of then and now.

The Weekly Standard? Really?

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

Which looks like... all of them.

Well, lookit that.

Well, lookit that.

Polls can't be trusted! Only the election matters! *gibbers and froths*

Oh speaking of polls, fivethirtyeight.com shows a 51% chance of Obama winning Indiana. That's crazy talk! We're a red state!

*dodge* *dodge* *dodge* *evade* *evade* *evade* *polls* *polls* *polls* (http://www.pollingreport.com/)

So tell me Canuck. Who exactly is addicted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14083377&postcount=2230) to polls hmm? Especially when you keep saying that they don't matter.