Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

:lol:

[Passacaglia]

That was actually pretty funny -- much better than when Palin was on.

[Radii]

Saturday Night Live - McCain QVC Open - Video - NBC.com (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/)

:lol:

mccain's fine gold! That is outstanding.

[larrymcg421]

Zogby has McCain up 1 in a one day poll which is volatile. I'm sincerely hoping this is an outlier

It was. Obama was up 10 in yesterday's sample.

[stevew]

LOL, it's really sad that people are still sticking with the old "BHO". "Oh no what is he doing! He's putting on a turban and bombing American cities. How did we elect a Muslim???"

Fine, you'd rather see BO?

[Mike D]

Me and my family tend to vote Republican (almost always local, often national) and every member of my family thinks the "Oh no, he's an Arab" is the dumbest election ploy ever. And to drive home the point my dad thinks he is a communist, my mom likes Sarah Palin, my brother could be JIMGA and they all think the Hussian name dropping and Obama dressed as an Arab pictures are beyond ridiculous.

So you are voting for Barak Hussein Obama to rebel against your dad?

[JPhillips]

I love how some conservatives now have a philosophy of, "whatever pisses off liberals".

[JPhillips]

Saturday Night Live - McCain QVC Open - Video - NBC.com (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/)

:lol:

Very funny. I am surprised he okayed the "going rogue" part.

[gstelmack]

I wish the no call list applied to political robocalls. I get about 8 per day from McCain, Saxby, etc. Tonight I had a message from Ann who wanted me to know she's a Joe the Plumber too and I should be concerned about my taxes and my safety. She's sure that as an "average American" I need to have the republican party look out for me.

I'm in the same boat. This is freakin' ridiculous. All they're doing is ticking me off. None from Obama yet, but Kay Hagan is hitting us as bad as Elizabeth Dole is. I got TWO identical endorsement messages from separate endorsers (Jim Hunt and Donny Harrison) for our incumbent state auditor, Leslie Merritt, telling us how great this watchdog is who mostly uses the local paper to do his leg work, and then goes after the corruption they uncover first. It's a huge mess. Both parties just blasting away phone calls at us. Sigh.

[GrantDawg]

Very funny. I am surprised he okayed the "going rogue" part.


"I'm a true maverick...a republican without money."

Too good.

[panerd]

Fine, you'd rather see BO?

No, I would rather see Obama. Let's see I can type Obama in 2 seconds and BHO in about the same. He is going out of his way to type BHO. Sorry but I don't ever type JM for McCain.

[panerd]

So you are voting for Barak Hussein Obama to rebel against your dad?


Bob Barr

[Flasch186]

It was. Obama was up 10 in yesterday's sample.

However this mustve been an anomalie, right? Look at how close it is@!! ROXORZ@!!!

Where is MBBF to stake his hat right on this poll where the spread is bigger than I can remember?

[Big Fo]

However this mustve been an anomalie, right? Look at how close it is@!! ROXORZ@!!!

Where is MBBF to stake his hat right on this poll where the spread is bigger than I can remember?

He's probably waiting for Matt Drudge to post some good news.

I got a kick out of Zogby calling out Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight.com, clearly upset with his methodology being questioned.

"Remember, as I said yesterday, one day does not make a trend. This is a three-day rolling average and no changes have been tectonic. A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else's) health."

[molson]

I have a moment of clarity...

This is much better pair of candidates than Bush/Kerry. I think two years ago if, someone told you this would be the matchup, you'd think, hey, that's pretty cool. The campaigns and the bickering just turn everything to shit in the end though.

[Buccaneer]

I love how some conservatives now have a philosophy of, "whatever pisses off liberals".

Kinda of ironic since many are doing just the opposite. There is no difference between voting to piss off the GOP/RelRight/Military and voting to piss of the Dem/Wackos/Academic-HollywoodElites.

[molson]

Kinda of ironic since many are doing just the opposite. There is no difference between voting to piss off the GOP/RelRight/Military and voting to piss of the Dem/Wackos/Academic-HollywoodElites.

Liberals think it's different for them because they're "correct".

If you're voting for anyone else, it must be (in their mind), for some other purpose, because it's clearly not "correct"

I'm trying to balance my respect for Obama, optimism for his presidency v. my intense hatred of Democrats (not the actual people that happen to be Democrats, but just something about that party turns them into awful, short-sighted people with no respect for the opinions of others, just when they've got politics on the brain). Disclaimer, not everybody of course.

[GrantDawg]

I have a moment of clarity...

This is much better pair of candidates than Bush/Kerry. I think two years ago if, someone told you this would be the matchup, you'd think, hey, that's pretty cool. The campaigns and the bickering just turn everything to shit in the end though.


That's very true.

[Swaggs]

Got my first robocall from the McCain camp yesterday, so I guess West Virginia is, at least somewhat, in play.

[GrantDawg]

Liberals think it's different for them because they're "correct".

If you're voting for anyone else, it must be (in their mind), for some other purpose, because it's clearly not "correct"


Many on both sides think that way.

[Swaggs]

I have a moment of clarity...

This is much better pair of candidates than Bush/Kerry. I think two years ago if, someone told you this would be the matchup, you'd think, hey, that's pretty cool. The campaigns and the bickering just turn everything to shit in the end though.

Agreed. And the favorable/unfavorable ratings indicate that both McCain and Obama are more liked than disliked. Almost 20% of people have a favorable opinion of Obama and 8% have a favorable view of McCain (he had been polling much higher in early September, but probably lost some with economic collapse, Palin dragging him down, and some of the negative attacks backfiring).

[Swaggs]

Dola, those figures are from RCP.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I know. I just happened to see it in the headlines & I figured I'd drop it in for anyone who wanted to argue or bitch about it.

As Big Fo pointed out, I wonder how much of the bias is simply due to the McCain-Palin lofting up softball after softball to the press for criticism. Obama, by comparison, has run a very tight, very on-message, very mistake-free campaign. It's just a lot harder to find an Obama/Biden mistake to take and run with, compared to McCain/Palin, and the press likes stories that write themselves.

Never mind what you think of her (or even what I think of her for that matter), without the presence of Palin I doubt McCain gets even half the positive coverage he's gotten. She's been the only selling point he's had for weeks now.

I think that was true the week or two around the convention, but the sheer number of mistakes/gaffes is what's generating the "negative" press, not the message on issues she's bringing to the campaign.

Contrast this to what it might have been like had McCain picked Romney or Lieberman. No Troopergate, no crappy interviews with the 3 major networks, no not being able to answer questions from 3rd graders, etc....

I mean, what positive coverage could Palin have generated for McCain ever since the RNC-shine wore off? Her looks/age, family and stance on the issues can only generate so many stories.

This is much better pair of candidates than Bush/Kerry. I think two years ago if, someone told you this would be the matchup, you'd think, hey, that's pretty cool. The campaigns and the bickering just turn everything to shit in the end though.

Absolutely. In my opinion, it's probably the best couple of candidates since 1980.

[flere-imsaho]

Further summary from fivethirtyeight.com, which I think shows my last two analysis posts are still in order:

That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.

(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)

Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada

[Flasch186]

Liberals think it's different for them because they're "correct".

If you're voting for anyone else, it must be (in their mind), for some other purpose, because it's clearly not "correct"

I'm trying to balance my respect for Obama, optimism for his presidency v. my intense hatred of Democrats (not the actual people that happen to be Democrats, but just something about that party turns them into awful, short-sighted people with no respect for the opinions of others, just when they've got politics on the brain). Disclaimer, not everybody of course.

Of course, not everybody, but it is equivalent when a certain fraction of the right views a vote for a democratic candidate, a sin and a vote for killing babies, and such.

[molson]

Of course, not everybody, but it is equivalent when a certain fraction of the right views a vote for a democratic candidate, a sin and a vote for killing babies, and such.

Sure, all I can express is that the Democrats get under my skin far more. Perhaps because I look at hard-core Republicans like my grandparents - ignorant, and behind the times, sure, but not bad people and they'll be dead soon anyway.

Democrats claim a more tolerant, open-minded, progressive message when (some) are CRAZY over the top on the close-mindedness. Dissent from their ideal is dealt with harshly.

[GrantDawg]

Interesting that Hillary claims the chances of her running again is "almost zero." I wonder if she really means that. My guess is yes because she would not run against an incumbent Obama in 4 years (which I think she is pre-supposing). Now, if McCain pulls an upset....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perhaps because I look at hard-core Republicans like my grandparents - ignorant, and behind the times, sure, but not bad people and they'll be dead soon anyway.

Oh the irony ... that's roughly my take on my parents natural gravitation toward D's, even when the candidates positions are diametrically opposed to their own on more than 90% of social issues and roughly 2/3rds of other policy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting that Hillary claims the chances of her running again is "almost zero." I wonder if she really means that. My guess is yes because she would not run against an incumbent Obama in 4 years (which I think she is pre-supposing). Now, if McCain pulls an upset....

I tend to believe her on that regardless of the outcome. There's something about being stabbed in the back repeatedly that would make someone weary of the whole process.

[GrantDawg]

I tend to believe her on that regardless of the outcome. There's something about being stabbed in the back repeatedly that would make someone weary of the whole process.


True. And she has a real shot at becoming Majority leader someday. Quite possibly soon.

[Big Fo]

Saturday Night Live - McCain QVC Open - Video - NBC.com (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/)

:lol:

I actually liked Ben Affleck's Keith Olbermann/Countdown sketch better. The way he kept shifting around from camera to camera was dead on, though he did screw up by throwing the balled-up paper at the camera at the wrong time.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/saturday-night-lives-olbe_n_140102.html)

[ISiddiqui]

I heard great things about it, but it wasn't online last evening :(.

Affleck was awesome though.

[Alan T]

Ugh.. I am so tired of all of the super-intellectual democrat supporters constantly bombarding me to make sure that I am making the "smart" choice. I am starting to think that they may have just convinced me to do the "smart" choice and vote for Barr for president instead of Obama (not that it would matter in this God forsaken super liberal state though).

I'll likely be voting democrat for the US Senator though (Kerry is up for re-election), since the libertarian candidate here is a joke, and the Republican candidate seems to be an ex-military type that is pushing everything that I dislike about the Republican party and not really hitting many of the points that i do like.

What I wouldn't give for a strong party that actually listened to and addressed the desires of the central 60% of this country, instead of the right wing telling me that I need to do the "moral thing" or the left wing telling me that I need to do the "smart thing" .. You all are all the same, just arguing a different side.

[JPhillips]

How exactly would you create a party that appealed to 60% of the country? I don't see any reason to think that any party platform would be more popular than the current ones.

[JPhillips]

The head of the American Nazi Party endorses Obama, seriously.

White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals–basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women–when usually negroes who have ‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize–that’s the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Young Drachma]

I actually liked Ben Affleck's Keith Olbermann/Countdown sketch better. The way he kept shifting around from camera to camera was dead on, though he did screw up by throwing the balled-up paper at the camera at the wrong time.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/saturday-night-lives-olbe_n_140102.html)

I thought it was hilarious and dead-on, the Olbermann skit. A lot of libs hated it, but I thought it was too great for words. Over the top to be sure, but...really good.

[Big Fo]

I thought it was hilarious and dead-on, the Olbermann skit. A lot of libs hated it, but I thought it was too great for words. Over the top to be sure, but...really good.

Yeah I'm liberal and a fan of the show but a good skit is a good skit. Supposedly Olbermann was on set during rehearsals and even he got a kick out of it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How exactly would you create a party that appealed to 60% of the country? I don't see any reason to think that any party platform would be more popular than the current ones.

Testify.

[Alan T]

How exactly would you create a party that appealed to 60% of the country? I don't see any reason to think that any party platform would be more popular than the current ones.

I don't know.. maybe it is a pipedream and maybe I won't ever have any political party in this country that actually represents my viewpoints. I just feel both the Republican party and the Democrat party spend way too much time trying to make the extremist in their parties happy and ignoring the more centrist sides of their parties. I guess I just feel the majority of time spent debating "political issues" the most of the time is spent righting some wrong (or wronging some right as the case may be) for one side or the other's extremist views of the hotbutton topics.

[sterlingice]

Interesting that Hillary claims the chances of her running again is "almost zero." I wonder if she really means that. My guess is yes because she would not run against an incumbent Obama in 4 years (which I think she is pre-supposing). Now, if McCain pulls an upset....

I think "early on", Hillary was really hedging her bets, hoping Obama lost. I remember just after the convention, about the time Obama needed her to be out there hitting back at Palin, she was nowhere to be seen and her and Bill were both couching their words somewhat. That said, as the odds have tipped in Obama's favor, they've been more willing to help out. Kindof what you expect from the Clintons, right?

SI

[sterlingice]

I have a moment of clarity...

This is much better pair of candidates than Bush/Kerry. I think two years ago if, someone told you this would be the matchup, you'd think, hey, that's pretty cool. The campaigns and the bickering just turn everything to shit in the end though.

Agreed- I've been saying this all along. :)

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Man, I just saw McCain's weekend update... it damned hilarious too!

Saturday Night Live - Update: Sen. McCain - Video - NBC.com (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-sen-mccain/805401/)

The Double Maverick, lol!

[Mike D]

Interesting that Hillary claims the chances of her running again is "almost zero." I wonder if she really means that. My guess is yes because she would not run against an incumbent Obama in 4 years (which I think she is pre-supposing). Now, if McCain pulls an upset....

I can't imagine many scenarios where I would prefer Hillary to Obama. So an Obama win on Tuesday gives us Republicans at least that piece of mind.

[Buccaneer]

I think "early on", Hillary was really hedging her bets, hoping Obama lost. I remember just after the convention, about the time Obama needed her to be out there hitting back at Palin, she was nowhere to be seen and her and Bill were both couching their words somewhat. That said, as the odds have tipped in Obama's favor, they've been more willing to help out. Kindof what you expect from the Clintons, right?

SI

Right.

[sterlingice]

I wasn't sure where to put this but this is the closest thread to what I saw. I was on Google, looking for Joe Posnanski's blog (great writer, covers sports for the Kansas City Star). Nowadays, as you're typing, Google fills in some likely results below you. The first two hits once I typed in "Joe":

Joe the plumber 738,000 hits
Joe the plummer 1,670,000 hits

:(

("Me fail English? That's unpossible")

SI

[Swaggs]

I liked the Olberman skit, but it went on for way too long.

The "Sad Grandpa" made me laugh out loud.

[flere-imsaho]

I tend to believe her on that regardless of the outcome. There's something about being stabbed in the back repeatedly that would make someone weary of the whole process.

True. Also, this was an exceptionally grueling nomination campaign.

[Big Fo]

Polling methods have been brought up a lot in this thread and on other messageboards wherever the election is discussed. Here's a graph from fivethirtyeight.com showing Obama's lead in polls that have cell-phone users included (yellow) and landlines only (grey).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2997623936_2d66d647c4_o.png

It's a bigger difference than I would have guessed.

[Flasch186]

i havnt seen MBBF today so I cannot trust these polls and will wait for his.

Plus the ones above dont have any date on them so they could be from whenever.

Plus there is no link.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

i havnt seen MBBF today so I cannot trust these polls and will wait for his.

Plus the ones above dont have any date on them so they could be from whenever.

Plus there is no link.

You'll pardon the fact that I have two jobs, a 20 month old child, and a wife to deal with in my 'spare' time. I can't be here at all times.

[Mustang]

You'll pardon the fact that I have two jobs, a 20 month old child, and a wife to deal with in my 'spare' time. I can't be here at all times.

Hey, the presidential election is once every 4 years, suck it up.

:D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hey, the presidential election is once every 4 years, suck it up.

:D

That's right! Put aside those responsibilities. We're in the stretch run! :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

By the way, I did have a family come by my house on Sunday afternoon. I opened the door and immediately saw the Obama buttons. I thought about dragging it out like I was interested in their message just so they could get to less houses, but I was a nice guy and quickly told them that I was a McCain supporter and I probably would be a waste of their time. They laughed and moved on.

The unfortunate part was that I got back to my living room just in time to watch the Chiefs give up the game tying touchdown and lose in OT.

[flere-imsaho]

The unfortunate part was that I got back to my living room just in time to watch the Chiefs give up the game tying touchdown and lose in OT.

Obama was trying to save you from seeing your team lose, MBBF. It's still not too late to drink the Kool-Aid! :D

[flere-imsaho]

Here's something I've been thinking about as the talking heads have begun predicting an Obama victory, and possibly a "large" victory, where "large" probably means a few percentage points.

We know Obama's raised a ton of money. We know Obama's run a very tight, very efficient, very successful campaign. We know McCain's not run a very good campaign and has had troubles throughout.

The environment has favored Obama. The economy needs a lot of help. People want us out of Iraq. People are tired of Bush and the GOP.

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

[albionmoonlight]

Here's something I've been thinking about as the talking heads have begun predicting an Obama victory, and possibly a "large" victory, where "large" probably means a few percentage points.

We know Obama's raised a ton of money. We know Obama's run a very tight, very efficient, very successful campaign. We know McCain's not run a very good campaign and has had troubles throughout.

The environment has favored Obama. The economy needs a lot of help. People want us out of Iraq. People are tired of Bush and the GOP.

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

America is a center-right country. Basically, I think that George Will--though an order of magnitude smarter than the average American--closely approximates where the average American falls on the political scale.

Pulling some numbers out of my ass, I think that in any given election, you have 45% of the people who will vote D no matter what, 45% of the people who will vote R no matter what, and of the remaining 10%, they are predisposed to go 65-35 to the GOP.

[JPhillips]

America is a center-right country. Basically, I think that George Will--though an order of magnitude smarter than the average American--closely approximates where the average American falls on the political scale.

Pulling some numbers out of my ass, I think that in any given election, you have 45% of the people who will vote D no matter what, 45% of the people who will vote R no matter what, and of the remaining 10%, they are predisposed to go 65-35 to the GOP.

The 65-35 split is well off IMO. Since Reagan we've been a split or nearly split country. A few hundred votes in FL could make this an election for a fifth consecutive Dem term.

[Butter_of_69]

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Also, any editorials of note?

[albionmoonlight]

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Not my list, but I found it on another board and assume that it is correct.

Google Docs - Closing times (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pCVZJvkaaejC4jCgiWMo0Lg)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Anybody have lists of when polls close tomorrow?

Usually, the courts decide that in Missouri every 4 years. I'm not even sure why they bother trying to make an official closing time.

[Mustang]

Usually, the courts decide that in Missouri every 4 years. I'm not even sure why they bother trying to make an official closing time.

I'm sure there will be 50 news storys tomorrow about how times were extended because they ran out of ballots because of unprecedented turnout.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm sure there will be 50 news storys tomorrow about how times were extended because they ran out of ballots because of unprecedented turnout.

And well they should be. Unless of course you want to disenfranchise people.

[lordscarlet]

You'll pardon the fact that I have two jobs, a 20 month old child, and a wife to deal with in my 'spare' time. I can't be here at all times.

I assume you did not see my question to you then.

I just want to clarify something from you. If the actual turnout at the polls matches the weighting used by pollsters, are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your criticisms?


Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

Clearly the conclusion is that Obama has a mandate from the American population.

[Fighter of Foo]

Get over and post in the predictions thread if you haven't already. No gambling, just bragging rights.

That definitely means you MBBF :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I assume you did not see my question to you then.

I just want to clarify something from you. If the actual turnout at the polls matches the weighting used by pollsters, are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your criticisms?

Why wouldn't I? My assertion is that the actual turnout will not match the voting weights being used by some of these polls. The logical assumption would be that if it turns out to be true, I was probably wrong. I realize that admitting that you're wrong is not a common thing in these kinds of threads, but I'll go out on a limb and do it if need be.

BTW.......great to see these big voter turnout numbers in Colorado. I don't buy into the whole 'turnout is good for the XXX party candidate'. I'd love to see more Americans take an interest in the elections. It's good for everyone IMO.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/DDefault.aspx?tid=547

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Really bad timing for this kind of thing to come out given the states that this news could affect.....

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire--USNewswire/ -- Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation's coal industry.

"Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

"These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

"It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

"Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

"In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

"Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability."

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio's underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

SOURCE Ohio Coal Association

[Autumn]

It's sad to see what a game politics has become, on every side. These sort of stories always get 'discovered' seconds before the election. I know the stakes are high, but perhaps if we weren't all so damn sure that we knew the right outcome we wouldn't be willing to play games like this to ensure our victory.

[Tigercat]

Who votes based on the coal association? They were very anti-Kerry, saying he had "20 years of votes against coal." Kerry still did pretty well with coal families thanks to the unions.

[Autumn]

And I agree about the close nature of elections these days. It was just as surprising to me with the Bush elections, particularly the second one. An incumbent war president would normally hold every advantage, but it came so close. I think people are fairly settled in their camps and it takes a lot to shift anything.

[JPhillips]

Barack Obama prefers socialist, Muslim coal.

[Klinglerware]

Really bad timing for this kind of thing to come out given the states that this news could affect.....

Another instance of McCain missing the lay-up. Negative PR does work, but it takes time to work. If they wanted this to have any real effect, they should have released it a week ago instead of the day before the election...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Who votes based on the coal association? They were very anti-Kerry, saying he had "20 years of votes against coal." Kerry still did pretty well with coal families thanks to the unions.

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

[Fighter of Foo]

Obama's not winning WV anyway. I's confused.

[Tigercat]

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

Again for months the coal associations/Republicans hammered Kerry as being anti-coal for decades. It didn't make a big impact with coal families or the coal states then. (Kerry did as well in the coal states as he was going to do with or without coal issues.)

Why would one believe that this would make any kind of noticeable impact, when as mentioned it won't have time to soak into the public's consciousness?

[Raiders Army]

I'm glad the next President gave back his illegal alien aunt's donations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm glad the next President gave back his illegal alien aunt's donations.

Tough situation there. His aunt may be deported thanks to the attention to his campaign. As Obama said, it's the law, but that doesn't mean he personally has to like the situation.

[larrymcg421]

If only McCain could get back all the money he sent to Khalidi, then he might be able to run some ads without having to siphon money from his GOTV operation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

I'll first qualify things by adding "a relatively few percentage points in the popular vote". In other words, in recent US politics an electoral landslide & a popular landslide are two different animals & the latter is an endangered specieis.

Only 5 of the last 10 elections have been won by a candidate getting even 50.1% of the popular vote, and in the past 60 years (15 elections) only 4 times has a candidate gotten reached 55% of the popular vote (Ike '56, LBJ '64, Nixon '72, Reagan '84).

I believe albionmoonlight made a good point earlier, that by nature the US tends to be center-right more than anything else ... so that's the tendency that anyone left of that mark has to overcome to win.

That he appears poised to do so says almost as much about McCain as anything I think. The number of people (outside of FOFC) that I've run across who are actually enthusiastic about voting for him? Zero. I mean damn, that's the same number I've met who were gung-ho about voting for McKinney. Surely I should have at least run into one even by accident.

But ultimately what it says is what I already knew: there's not much "United" about these States, and largely hasn't been for most of my lifetime.
I'd say at least 25% on each end hates the other end as much as they hate terrorists/oil executives/child molesters/Klansmen/whatever. That's about half the country that friggin' despises at least half the rest. "United" is not much more than a sad joke with fairly rare exception.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

But ultimately what it says is what I already knew: there's not much "United" about these States, and largely hasn't been for most of my lifetime.

I'd say at least 25% on each end hates the other end as much as they hate terrorists/oil executives/child molesters/Klansmen/whatever. That's about half the country that friggin' despises at least half the rest. "United" is not much more than a sad joke with fairly rare exception.

I think that's a pretty heavy dose of 'debbie downer' if I've ever seen it. Missouri and Kansas fans 'hate' each other a few times a year, but we're able to peacefully co-exist and joke about our differences the rest of the year. I think the same can be said of the public in general in regards to politics. The rhetoric heats up pretty intensely during the election season, but we're able to get along just fine most of the year and we'd certainly be united in a situation of crisis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think the same can be said of the public in general in regards to politics.

{shrug} We disagree on what that "able to get along just fine most of the year" part means I guess.

All it takes to put folks back in the rivalry mode you mentioned is bringing the votes/voting issues/et al to the fore & bam, we're right back to it ... which says to me that it's not a matter of liking each other any more the rest of the time, it's just a combination of forgetfulness & denial that allows us to coexist more peacefully.

edit to add: The one distinction I didn't draw earlier (and now think I should have) is that we seem to be considerably less likely to lose hope of rehabilitating an internal political opponent than we are some of the other reviled categories I mentioned in my previous post. And that reluctance definitely factors in somewhere, although frankly I believe we're probably overly optimistic with that approach (myself included).

[Tigercat]

Just saw the full Obama quote on Coal, he says non-clean built power plants would be bankrupted because of penalties.

So basically, Obama is saying he is for the same exact thing the coal coalitions say they are for, "clean coal." I don't know what to say. Given the way the McCain campaign/McCain supporters have acted in this election, I am not surprised.

[Autumn]

It certainly seems to me that the space between the political camps has gotten not necessarily larger, but more vicious for sure. I think most of the time we get along anyway becuase we avoid those sort of subjects, or keep quiet if they happen to come up. But I would agree that there are parts of our own country who just can't stand other parts, and vice-versa, and seem incapable of responding to each other with anything more than kneejerk vitriol. It's sad. The chip on people's shoulders seems inordinately large.

[Tigercat]

It certainly seems to me that the space between the political camps has gotten not necessarily larger, but more vicious for sure. I think most of the time we get along anyway becuase we avoid those sort of subjects, or keep quiet if they happen to come up. But I would agree that there are parts of our own country who just can't stand other parts, and vice-versa, and seem incapable of responding to each other with anything more than kneejerk vitriol. It's sad. The chip on people's shoulders seems inordinately large.

I really thought/hoped that this election would be the exception to that. If we had the McCain campaign that he ran in 2000, that would have been the case.

The good news is, Obama/Democrats have run a relatively clean, issue filled campaign. (The worst of it is the constant Bush mentions, but as personal and vicious as American politics has been lately that's actually a step up.) Also, the negative campaigning from either side just hasn't worked this cycle. Hopefully lessons will be learned from that... I am cautiously optimistic that an Obama Jindal race in 2012 could be all about issues and discussing differences in a fairly civil manner.

I just hope to God that we don't see Palin run for President. She embraces everything that is wrong about political campaigns.

[Autumn]

I'm not sure how much the presidential electoins have to do with this attitude though. Certainly something, but it's not clear to me that a change in election tactics will have much effect on how joe and jane schmoe talk to each other about politics. I don't really see political ads or debates, or pay attention to the negative stories, for example. But I hear the rancor in people in just ordinary political debates online. I'm sure the negative ads help feed that but I'm not sure it's much of a percentage of where it all comes from.

[Tigercat]

I'm not sure how much the presidential electoins have to do with this attitude though. Certainly something, but it's not clear to me that a change in election tactics will have much effect on how joe and jane schmoe talk to each other about politics. I don't really see political ads or debates, or pay attention to the negative stories, for example. But I hear the rancor in people in just ordinary political debates online. I'm sure the negative ads help feed that but I'm not sure it's much of a percentage of where it all comes from.

I think they can have a pretty big affect. I have noticed a lot of liberals that were previously very bitter and angry towards anything conservative mellow out a lot during this campaign. Likewise I have seen some conservatives break off from the Muslim and socialist rhetoric after McCain denounced it.

The modern American political supporter is just in it to win elections. Winning at all costs has given us the ugliness we have today. But at the same time, that is what can help get us out of it. When the candidate that the base has to support says "This is about issues first and foremost, let us agree or disagree civilly."

[JonInMiddleGA]

The modern American political supporter is just in it to win elections.

I would suggest that you've mixed up the cart & the horse. The sense of urgency that goes with winning seems to stem from the disdain for the opponent, not the other way around.

[Tigercat]

I would suggest that you've mixed up the cart & the horse. The sense of urgency that goes with winning seems to stem from the disdain for the opponent, not the other way around.

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

[lighthousekeeper]

McCain's "spread the wealth" attack seems somewhat risky - it has a chance to backfire if and when people realize that they make less than $250,000 and therefore are on the side that benefits from spreading the wealth.

[Flasch186]

The issue presented impacts some of the biggest battleground states of this election. It's an important development, though the timing was obviously politically motivated.

which Im sure youre as equally upset about as the threat of the Troopergate report becoming an "October Surprise."

[larrymcg421]

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Maybe not at the beginning of the campaign, but by now I think many dislike him almost as much as Bush.

I was polled by Gallup and they asked me to rate the candidates on a -5 to +5 scale. I gave McCain a -3, when it would have been a +1 or +2 a year ago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Relatively fair enough, especially since your question highlights what I should have said instead of what I said.

Consider the original "stem from the disdain for the opponent" amended to read "disdain for the opponent's supporters". It's more accurate to what I meant (although I don't always make the distinction even to myself apparently) and now it answers your question too.

I don't know if D's this time around hold McCain in such low regard as in recent years but I don't believe they hold non-Obama voters in any higher regard than they held non-Kerry or non-Gore voters.

[Alan T]

Living in Massachusetts, I still have not seen a McCain advertisement yet on tv. I finally started seeing random Obama ads in between the random Sununu/whoever he is running against in New Hampshire ad spam. So my exposure to this entire presidential cycle has been primarily from those few ads and what I read on the boards.

For the most part, I haven't seen much difference between how the Democrats or the Republicans have spoken on this election in regards to negative or positive ads and campaign spins. The New Hampshire race with Sununu is actually kind of hilarious.. both sides evidentally have the same advertisement agency as every single commercial is a contest to see how many sound bites they can find of the other candidate "supporting" Bush. The only Obama ads I have seen on tv here have done pretty much the same thing in regards to McCain.

I don't think I would call any of that "negative advertisement" to the extent of it being worse than things we have seen in the past, but I don't really see many Obama ads that really talk much about what he is trying to acomplish. Everything this election advertisement wise here has been all about trying to distance yourself from Bush while tying the other candidate to Bush.

[Fighter of Foo]

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Not a Democrat, but I have extreme disdain for the McCain & the Republican party and their enablers, the Democratic party.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, holding loathsome, minority opinions and going around inflicting them on everyone but yourself, or initially opposing those views before inevitably capitulating in the most coward-like fashion.

[Tigercat]

Not a Democrat, but I have extreme disdain for the McCain & the Republican party and their enablers, the Democratic party.

I'm honestly not sure which is worse, holding loathsome, minority opinions and going around inflicting them on everyone but yourself, or initially opposing those views before inevitably capitulating in the most coward-like fashion.

So since you have disdain for both sides, it cancels out? ;)

Ah, if only we had the time, patience, and wisdom required to have a direct democracy. There are days I wish we had a parliamentary system, it would be more likely to give people real choices at least.

[SirFozzie]

I am not sure it has to be that way. Do Democrats this cycle really have that much disdain for McCain?

Well, I'm an independent, and I have nothing but respect for the things John McCain has done in the past. It's his VP Pick that I can't friggin stand.

[Radii]

I don't really see many Obama ads that really talk much about what he is trying to acomplish. Everything this election advertisement wise here has been all about trying to distance yourself from Bush while tying the other candidate to Bush.


There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

[SirFozzie]

There are reports out that Obama's gravely ill grandmother has passed away. God bless, Toot.

[CamEdwards]

So since you have disdain for both sides, it cancels out? ;)

Ah, if only we had the time, patience, and wisdom required to have a direct democracy. There are days I wish we had a parliamentary system, it would be more likely to give people real choices at least.

Direct democracy? Wow, I'm ready to go the other route. Let's start with repealing the 17th amendment. :)

[Alan T]

There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

Yeah, I would believe that the RNC probably has just as many negative ads as the Democrats do. We just don't get many of them up here airtime wise. I just reject the spin that people have that one side is being less negative than the other. From my independent perspective both sides were completely willing to do whatever they needed ad-wise to try to win, but because of an early lead the Democrats have had less of a need to , or felt less of a need to. If the tables were reversed, I would fully expect much nastier ads than the current ones that we see.

I wish we got some of the ads for Obama that you have in NC though, they must feel no need to try to "sell" Obama to anyone in Massachusetts since this state is so heavily liberal, so everything is oriented around trying to remind us why McCain is bad rather than why Obama is good.

[gstelmack]

There are a couple running here in North Carolina that are basically Obama laying out bullet points for what he wants to accomplish, obviously at a super high 1 minute level, without any negative mentions. Of course, there are more attack ads than anything else, and Obama has the money to do both, where McCain probably doesn't. In casual TV viewing, the RNC definitely seems to be desperate, attacking everything they can think of, hoping something sticks with a voter on election day. Of course, if the polls are to be believed, they are desperate at this point.

What's fun is the Senate race, where Hagan and Dole are trading attacks constantly. It's a never ending flood from those two. And it's now got the RNC running "you don't want the liberal Dems to get to 60 senators so they can push through anything they want, do you?" ads.

[Logan]

Pumpy must hate Obama now.

[clemsonfan]

I feel like tonight is Christmas Eve. I'm so excited and nervous all in one!

[Fighter of Foo]

So since you have disdain for both sides, it cancels out? ;)

Ah, if only we had the time, patience, and wisdom required to have a direct democracy. There are days I wish we had a parliamentary system, it would be more likely to give people real choices at least.

It's funny, the people who still support Bush go on regularly about how awful the "left-wing" Dems are, how the world will end if they're elected and so on. On issues of legitimate substance (Iraq/Imperialism, Taxes/Spending) there's almost no difference.

For example, Obama wants to leave a skeleton crew in Iraq and go to Pakistan while McCain wants to keep everyone where they are. Dems traditionally tax, spend & regulate, but Bush2 has spent more and issued more regulations than any President ever. Big fucking whoop.

There's no pol, save for Ron Paul, that comes anywhere close to representing my views, which in short is leaving people the fuck alone. This is because 1) Every pol gets paid by companies who make money by doing exactly the opposite and 2) Most of the people who want to become pols in the first place are usually not the sort of people who tend leave people be.

So it goes...

[larrymcg421]

This is really sad news...

Obama's grandmother died of cancer. Just one day before he was about to be elected President. I really wish she had been able to see that.


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A26GV20081103
(http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A26GV20081103</p><p>)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's grandmother died of cancer, he said in a statement on Monday, a little more than a week after he interrupted the White House campaign to say goodbye to her in Hawaii.

"It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer," Obama said in a joint statement with his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng. "She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength and humility."

Dunham, 86, helped raise Obama from the age of 10 while his mother was working in Indonesia, and Obama took an emotional 22-hour trip to Hawaii to visit her on October 23 and 24.

Obama said afterward his grandmother had been flooded with cards, flowers and well-wishes from around the country, and he regularly thanked crowds at his campaign rallies for their prayers.

"Our family wants to thank all of those who sent flowers, cards, well-wishes and prayers during this difficult time," the statement said.

"It brought our grandmother and us great comfort. Our grandmother was a private woman, and we will respect her wish for a small private ceremony to be held at a later date," the statement said.

Dunham had followed Obama's presidential bid with great interest, and her death comes one day before U.S. voters will render their verdict in the race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

Obama affectionately called her "Toot" -- short for "tutu," the Hawaiian word for grandmother -- and frequently spoke of her on the campaign trail.

Dunham had recently broken her hip but the campaign had refused to comment on reports she was suffering from cancer.

[JPhillips]

If it was anything like when my Dad passed the extra few days wouldn't have mattered. I just hope that she was able to recognize him when he went to see her.

[lordscarlet]

Why wouldn't I? My assertion is that the actual turnout will not match the voting weights being used by some of these polls. The logical assumption would be that if it turns out to be true, I was probably wrong. I realize that admitting that you're wrong is not a common thing in these kinds of threads, but I'll go out on a limb and do it if need be.


The way you have answered similar questions previously did not come across this way. You said that the election results would not prove the polls correct. I think the problem is that the answer was based on the question of whether a matching percentage win by Obama would prove you wrong. I think my question was more accurate to what people want to know regarding your ability to admit if you were wrong or right. :)

[larrymcg421]

This is unbelievable...

A complaint filed by the California GOP:

Obama for America violated federal law by converting its campaign funds to Senator Obama's personal use. Senator Obama recently traveled to Hawaii to visit his sick grandmother...Therefore, the Obama Campaign violated the FEC's ban on "personal use" of campaign funds when it paid over $100,000 for the Campaign's charter to fly to Hawaii without obtaining reimbursement from Senator Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is unbelievable...

I agree. You'd think somebody in the Obama campaign would have been smarter than to let that happen.

(actually I figure somebody somewhere was smarter than that & had enough sense to make some sort of campaign appearance while there)

[larrymcg421]

Well, I see no reason to take the complaint as 100% fact, especially when it comes from complete and utter shitheads that have the nerve to file it when they did.

[Tigercat]

This is unbelievable...

A complaint filed by the California GOP:

I can imagine McCain calling California "What the fuck are you guys doing?" Some of these state branches really have no clue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

that have the nerve to file it when they did.

Please, spare the world your angst.

Did Obama take the day off? Did his campaign staff? Then why in the fuck should anyone else? If they had the info & there's a legitimate concern then it's fair game & they would have been remiss not doing so.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can imagine McCain calling California "What the fuck are you guys doing?"

Sadly, so can I.

[Tigercat]

Please, spare the world your angst.

Did Obama take the day off? Did his campaign staff? Then why in the fuck should anyone else? If they had the info & there's a legitimate concern then it's fair game & they would have been remiss not doing so.

They should have thought, "Will bringing this to court today be beneficial to my side of the campaign? And if it isn't, did Obama do something wrongful enough to risk my party looking like unsympathetic creeps?"

If they are really concerned about this issue they should have brought it up after the campaign, because they will only make the McCain camp look worse with this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they are really concerned about this issue they should have brought it up after the campaign, because they will only make the McCain camp look worse with this.

Sorry, but if it isn't a day where Obama takes off then the opposition damned sure shouldn't. Business as usual cuts both ways.

And FTR I'm not suggesting that Obama did anything wrong by continuing with his schedule.

[larrymcg421]

Jon, your opinion here doesn't surprise me one bit. I'm not one of the people around here that get shocked when you say something crazy. You have your opinions, they are wildly different than mine, and I fully respect that. So I guess what I'm saying you're kinda wasting your time on this one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So I guess what I'm saying you're kinda wasting your time on this one.

That's fine, I've long since lost hope in you regaining any semblance of reason, but I've got as much right to defend the move as you have to criticize it.

[larrymcg421]

That's fine, I've long since lost hope in you regaining any semblance of reason, but I've got as much right to defend the move as you have to criticize it.

I'm a bit bemused by the fact that you apparently thought I had reason at some point. I'm not aware of any position of mine that has wildly changed since I joined FOFC.

And of course you have that right. What I meant was you're wasting your time with the cute "Yeah, I'm shocked" irony bits.

[Flasch186]

Please, spare the world your angst.

Did Obama take the day off? Did his campaign staff? Then why in the fuck should anyone else? If they had the info & there's a legitimate concern then it's fair game & they would have been remiss not doing so.

Im sure you were equally pissed learning about the state of AK paying for Palin's kids to take trips with her on business when the kids weren't even invited right? Just want to make sure it's equal in your disdain eventhough Im sure it is.

[JPhillips]

This is unbelievable...

A complaint filed by the California GOP:

Don't worry, these things happen all the time. McCain has pending lawsuits as well. If anything comes of it it will just be a small fine.

[Surtt]

Please, spare the world your angst.

Did Obama take the day off? Did his campaign staff? Then why in the fuck should anyone else? If they had the info & there's a legitimate concern then it's fair game & they would have been remiss not doing so.

With all due respect.
This is why the GOP is behind in the poles, it is just more preaching to the choir.
While the republicans think this is fair game, it looks heartless to most everyone one else and those are the ones McCain needs to swing his way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and those are the ones McCain needs to swing his way.

And that sort of lack of logic, reason, or common sense is why I don't have any faith in the nation recovering from tomorrow's embarrassing disaster, we're simply too far gone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Im sure you were equally pissed learning about the state of AK paying for Palin's kids to take trips with her on business when the kids weren't even invited right? Just want to make sure it's equal in your disdain eventhough Im sure it is.

Bzzt. Read again Flash.

Did I comment on the claim itself? Nope.
Did I comment on the expenditure? Nope (other than to say I expected it would eventually be tied to something that made it allowable).

My comment was focused on the nauseating whining about the timing of a claim being levied with the appropriate body.

If not giving Saint Obama a free pass on this is already causing heartburn, I can only imagine how much angst we'll see over the next four years.

[SirFozzie]

We have our November Surprise!!!

Alaska's Personnel Board finds that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired.

Wow, I'm sure this clears up everything. It's good to see that she did not do.. wait.. you're telling me this has all been done before... by whom? A bipartisan group? That she did act unethically? Then why did Palin ask for this investigation on this.. oh.. it's done by a board Palin put into place.. ah.. that explains a lot.

(Please try to avoid the dripping sarcasm from my post)

[Flasch186]

you at least got me to laugh tonight by buzzing me :)

[Surtt]

And that sort of lack of logic, reason, or common sense is why I don't have any faith in the nation recovering from tomorrow's embarrassing disaster, we're simply too far gone.


Are you saying that there are enough ultra conservatives to elect McCain all by your self?
Have at it....

Otherwise you need moderates and independents, which are disgusted by the GOP trying to take political advantage over a funeral.

[JetsIn06]

Well, I'm an independent, and I have nothing but respect for the things John McCain has done in the past. It's his VP Pick that I can't friggin stand.

:+1:

[Raiders Army]

This is really sad news...

Obama's grandmother died of cancer. Just one day before he was about to be elected President. I really wish she had been able to see that.


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A26GV20081103
(http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A26GV20081103</p><p>)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's grandmother died of cancer, he said in a statement on Monday, a little more than a week after he interrupted the White House campaign to say goodbye to her in Hawaii.

"It is with great sadness that we announce that our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died peacefully after a battle with cancer," Obama said in a joint statement with his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng. "She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength and humility."

Dunham, 86, helped raise Obama from the age of 10 while his mother was working in Indonesia, and Obama took an emotional 22-hour trip to Hawaii to visit her on October 23 and 24.

Obama said afterward his grandmother had been flooded with cards, flowers and well-wishes from around the country, and he regularly thanked crowds at his campaign rallies for their prayers.

"Our family wants to thank all of those who sent flowers, cards, well-wishes and prayers during this difficult time," the statement said.

"It brought our grandmother and us great comfort. Our grandmother was a private woman, and we will respect her wish for a small private ceremony to be held at a later date," the statement said.

Dunham had followed Obama's presidential bid with great interest, and her death comes one day before U.S. voters will render their verdict in the race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

Obama affectionately called her "Toot" -- short for "tutu," the Hawaiian word for grandmother -- and frequently spoke of her on the campaign trail.

Dunham had recently broken her hip but the campaign had refused to comment on reports she was suffering from cancer.

RIP. :(

[terpkristin]

Well, I'm an independent, and I have nothing but respect for the things John McCain has done in the past. It's his VP Pick that I can't friggin stand.

I figure most people here know where I stand politically, though I must say, McCain's VP pick is a large part of the reason he won't be getting my vote. The other, somewhat shallower reason, is that I don't think he's the same person he was in 2000, when there was a very good chance I'd have voted for him. I'm not sure if it's because he's playing the game, trying to woo those on the far-right, or if it's because he's actually changed, but some of his positions (and his VP choice) scare me. Actually, his VP choice is somewhat insulting to educated women, IMO, but that's a personal thing. Either way, I feel he's changed since 2000, and I won't be voting for him.

/tk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Otherwise you need moderates and independents, which are disgusted by the GOP trying to take political advantage over a funeral.

And if they're more disgusted by that than they are by the worthless sack of shit he's running against then they weren't going to vote for him anyway. So where's the vote loss in that exactly?

[JPhillips]

From the CBS poll today.

There is evidence that Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket has hurt McCain with some voters. Fourteen percent of Obama's supporters say they once supported McCain, and the top reason given for their switch was McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate.

[SirFozzie]

Ok, let's settle down! After all, after tommorrow, it's over....

Well, until the first republican announces that he's running in 2012. so.. June, July 09 at the latest?

:devil: :rant: :devil:

[Daimyo]

Yet with all this, the most likely outcome, at this point, seems to be an Obama win by a few percentage points. What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?

RCP has Obama up nationally by 7.3% today. To put that in perspective, since 1960, we've had four elections that did not involve a sitting president and they had the following popular vote spreads:

<table width=50%><tr><td>2000</td><td>0.5%</td><td>Bush 43</td></tr><tr><td>1988</td><td>7.8%</td><td>Bush 41</td></tr><tr><td>1968</td><td>0.7%</td><td>Nixon</td></tr><tr><td>1960</td><td>0.1%</td><td>Kennedy</td></tr></table>

[SirFozzie]

Op-Ed Columnist - The Republican Rump - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?hp)

Interesting article from Paul Krugman today:

But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance

[DanGarion]

PalinAsPresident.com (http://www.palinaspresident.us/)

[molson]

We have our November Surprise!!!

Alaska's Personnel Board finds that Gov. Sarah Palin did not violate ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired.

Wow, I'm sure this clears up everything. It's good to see that she did not do.. wait.. you're telling me this has all been done before... by whom? A bipartisan group? That she did act unethically? Then why did Palin ask for this investigation on this.. oh.. it's done by a board Palin put into place.. ah.. that explains a lot.

(Please try to avoid the dripping sarcasm from my post)

All the news reports I read say the board was chosen by her predecessor.

Not that it matters, ANY outcome, of ANY group would have a predictable reaction from the closed-minded liberals who can't see anything except Obama = correct 100% of the time, Palin/McCain = wrong 100% of the time.

I wonder how long the honeymoon period last for Obama. At this rate I say he gets 6 years before the gloss wears off.

[SirFozzie]

Not that it matters, ANY outcome, of ANY group would have a predictable reaction from the closed-minded liberals who can't see anything except Obama = correct 100% of the time, Palin/McCain = wrong 100% of the time.


:rolleyes:

More like, the bipartisan group had already issued a six hundred or so page paper (in a state that's what, 56/44 R at best, 60/40 R at worst?) indicating that Palin HAD acted unethically, about a month ago? Kinda like closing the barn door after the horses and the rest of the walls have been sucked into a tornado, don't you think?

[Arles]

Op-Ed Columnist - The Republican Rump - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opinion/03krugman.html?hp)

Interesting article from Paul Krugman today:

But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance
I find it ironic that the GOP is always looked up as intolerant, yet I can't remember an anti-affirmative action black person or a pro-life woman who received any tolerance from the left (both are fairly significant portions of society).

It will be interesting to see how "tolerant" Obama and the democrats are on opposing viewpoints in the next 2-4 years - especially in regards to things like the fairness doctrine, gun control, domestic drilling/energy production and school vouchers. It's all fine to rip on Bush for being intolerant when you are out of power, the key is are you willing to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints once you are in power (esp with super majorities in both houses).

[Shkspr]

Sadly, so can I.

It's a human decency thing. You'd never understand.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't want them to be tolerant on stupid things though (i.e. domestic drilling)

[sachmo71]

It will be interesting to see how "tolerant" Obama and the democrats are on opposing viewpoints in the next 2-4 years - especially in regards to things like the fairness doctrine, gun control, domestic drilling/energy production and school vouchers. It's all fine to rip on Bush for being intolerant when you are out of power, the key is are you willing to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints once you are in power (esp with super majorities in both houses).

There won't be any. Even if Obama is really looking to make changes and try to increase cooperation between the parties, the rest of the government is still filled with the same assholes that have always been there. With a supermajority, Republicans will be the vocal minority, most likely watching in horror as the Democrats pass their pet projects at will.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Pumpy must hate Obama now.
Did he say he's a Rangers fan or something?

[Big Fo]

Obama supports an eight team college football playoff. I'm ready to vote for change.

[Arles]

Obama supports an eight team college football playoff. I'm ready to vote for change.
Something we can agree on ;)

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting. It appears that the Minneapolis Star Tribune is endorsing Norm Coleman for Senator, even as they endorse Obama for President:

kare11.com | Twin Cities, MN | Star Tribune endorses Barack Obama, Norm Coleman (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=527853)


The Star Tribune of Minneapolis is endorsing Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president but it joins the St. Paul Pioneer Press in supporting the incumbent Republican in Minnesota's senate race.
"The Star Tribune endorsement of Norm Coleman is a little short of shocking," U of M Humphrey Institute Political Analyst Larry Jacobs said.
Jacobs says while the Pioneer Press has a history of backing Republican U.S. Senate candidates, the Star Tribune historically backs Democratic candidates.
Republican sources tell KARE 11 the last time they can remember the Strib backing a Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate seat was 1988, when editors supported Dave Durenberger.
"To have both the major newspapers in Minnesota endorsing Norm Coleman is clearly a major boost for his candidacy. The question is, does this come too late and will it be enough?" Jacobs wondered.

[SirFozzie]

Well, it's time... (I'll modify slightly the traditional starting message for the Indy 500 for this Election 270)

Gentlemen, and Mrs Palin.. START YOUR ELECTION!

First town weighs in on election at midnight - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/03/dixville.notch/?iref=hpmostpop)

(20 voters in New Hampshire are casting the first votes of election day right now.

They'll also be the first election precinct to close, the law states they can close once all eligible voters have voted

[Tigercat]

Ha, Dicks-ville. I guess if you don't want to be up at midnight to vote in that town you get thrown out of town.

[Tigercat]

Wow, Dicks-ville hasn't gone Democrat in 40 years and Obama creams McCain there.

[SirFozzie]

what was the count, TC?

[Tigercat]

15-6 Obama.

[Lathum]

interesting

[Kodos]

15-6 Obama.

It's OVUH, baby!

[molson]

i don't want them to be tolerant on stupid things though (i.e. domestic drilling)

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal. Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain. They actually think for themselves and have different ideas. Even JIMGA, probably the biggest Obama-hater here, is pretty quick to criticize McCain. The Obama disciples are simply NOT capable of that. They can't criticize the savior, on ANYTHING. It makes their opinions completely meaningless because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything.

[EagleFan]

It's decided now. The Redskins lost, Obama wins. The rest is just formality.

Hey, Obama wants an NCAA football playoff so that is a plus in my eyes.

[rjolley]

Actually, that's not a liberal thing at all. I've seen people from both sides be very certain that their choice is the only choice and will call the other side ignorant and stubborn.

For me, Obama has some things right, McCain has some things right, and they both have some things wrong. It's definitely not 100% either way, and never has been since I've been following elections.

Then again, I haven't put my hat into the ring to run the country, so what I think is 100% may be totally wrong and would take the country to ruin faster than anything.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal.

actually you're wrong, but thanks for generalizing.

my opposition to domestic oil drilling as a means of solving our current energy problems is WELL documented in this thread, and that's whether Obama brought it up or McCain/Palin brought it up. Domestic oil drilling is snake-oil - it's fools gold. It won't do anything material to solve our problems. Unfortunately I also believe that domestic-drilling likely has bipartisan support and so it will end up happening.

On an issue like that - I hope they don't compromise. Compromise for compromise's sake is stupid. On an issue like say...gun control laws...I hope they do compromise (as long as it's not something that makes it okay for schoolkids to have semi-automatic rifles or something). Compromise for compromise's sake is stupid.

Nobody should sign onto a bill that they don't believe in just in the spirit of compromise.

[molson]

Actually, that's not a liberal thing at all. I've seen people from both sides be very certain that their choice is the only choice and will call the other side ignorant and stubborn.


And I definitely dislike it when conservatives are like that as well.

Here though, liberals are far more guilty of it. (And it's just more infuriating from them, because they're supposed to be the party of tolerance).

[larrymcg421]

That's a liberal.
More stereotypical bullshit. Yes, liberals are very excited for Obama, but it's not true that they're 100% behind him. I've said negative thigns about him in the past. I was originally a Hillary supporter. I hit him really hard when IS and I switched sides. I criticized the investigator of the troopergate report for his apparent bias.

Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain.

Or maybe it's because McCain isn't the candidate that alot of the GOP base wanted, whereas Obama is? I think it's wrong to automatically conclude that someone who is a strong supporter of Obama isn't thinking for themselves. Maybe they are, and he happens to align with their views?

They actually think for themselves and have different ideas.
So now you're just directly insulting a large portion of the posters in this thread. Wonderful.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal. Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain. They actually think for themselves and have different ideas. Even JIMGA, probably the biggest Obama-hater here, is pretty quick to criticize McCain. The Obama disciples are simply NOT capable of that. They can't criticize the savior, on ANYTHING. It makes their opinions completely meaningless because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything.

and you're magically qualified to make sweeping generalizations such as this why??

I'll criticize obama plenty - I just haven't seen anything WORTHY of criticism yet. That's where different people having different standards comes in. You may think say, the Ayers thing is worthy of criticizing him over - I think it's tenuous, grasping at straws, and a whole lot of nothing. That doesn't mean that if it wasn't I wouldn't be right there to criticize Obama on it.

and as for your opinion that I'm a sheep - well that's your opinion. I reject the characterization of me as an uneducated sheep, as would anyone else who has ever met me. but obviously you haven't had that experience so i can't expect you to (trying very hard to be civil here and not get angry).

[Klinglerware]

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal. Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain. They actually think for themselves and have different ideas. Even JIMGA, probably the biggest Obama-hater here, is pretty quick to criticize McCain. The Obama disciples are simply NOT capable of that. They can't criticize the savior, on ANYTHING. It makes their opinions completely meaningless because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything.

One could also argue that liberals are less likely to criticize the liberal Obama since his stated positions more or less coincide with their liberal world-views. Conservatives are more likely to criticize McCain, since he is perceived as being slightly to the left of the conservative mainstream. There is a reasonably significant faction of conservatives who remain suspicious of McCain, and whether he is in fact a "true" conservative.

[EagleFan]

molson - the difference as I see it.

Ask a liberal why they're against drilling, and odds are they will at least of some semblance of a coherent answer, agree or not.

Ask a conservative why gays can't get married, and the answer is some version of "because it's wrong."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about:

Ask a liberal why we should not be in Iraq and the answer you will receive is some version of "because war is wrong."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

molson - the difference as I see it.

Ask a liberal why they're against drilling, and odds are they will at least of some semblance of a coherent answer, agree or not.

Ask a conservative why gays can't get married, and the answer is some version of "because it's wrong."

I'd rather not get involved in this too much, but making a blanket statement like the one you just made regarding gay marriage lacks any level of actual truth. There are plenty of Democrats that are fully willing to drill for oil and I'd argue that the majority of conservatives are moderate enough to not care too much whether gays want to get married.

Also, please pardon the fact that I included the phrase 'drilling for oil' and 'gay marriage' in the same sentence.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also, please pardon the fact that I included the phrase 'drilling for oil' and 'gay marriage' in the same sentence.

You're excused (since I didn't even notice it at first).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ask a liberal why they're against drilling, and odds are they will at least of some semblance of a coherent answer, agree or not.

Obviously we must encounter different liberals.

I run into more here (Georgia, not FOFC) who couldn't spell "drill" nor find Alaska on the map.

Case in point was the charming lady in line with my wife & I that we patiently helped understand how "all this voting stuff" worked; i.e.
"No, you're not required to vote for every office if you don't want to",
"Yes, you're allowed to vote only for President",
"This? It's called a sample ballot, it just shows you what you're going to see when you get inside"

And no, I didn't make any of those up.

[JPhillips]

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal. Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain. They actually think for themselves and have different ideas. Even JIMGA, probably the biggest Obama-hater here, is pretty quick to criticize McCain. The Obama disciples are simply NOT capable of that. They can't criticize the savior, on ANYTHING. It makes their opinions completely meaningless because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything.

There isn't a poster in this thread that is more predictable than you when you start rambling about liberals. To believe every liberal agrees with Obama 100% of the time is either moronic or delusional.

[Flasch186]

This is a totally acceptable sentiment from liberals - the exact same thing from the other side you'd consider close-mindedness.

You're not tolerant, you're close-minded, you're set in your ways, and that's NO different from a Republican that doesn't want gays to get married and is set on that.

You can't even see it because you're SO set in your ways.

It goes back to the majority of this thread. Obama = 100% correct, any dissenting idea = stupid. Nobody can have the slightest fleeting thought that maybe, just MAYBE, they don't have all the answers, and that maybe there's people who have alternate opinions that are actually worth listening to. If it's not identical to your view, you think it's stupid. That's a liberal. Ya, that some conservatives, but look at this thread. The very small minority who aren't 100% devoted maniacs for Obama aren't 100% all over McCain. They actually think for themselves and have different ideas. Even JIMGA, probably the biggest Obama-hater here, is pretty quick to criticize McCain. The Obama disciples are simply NOT capable of that. They can't criticize the savior, on ANYTHING. It makes their opinions completely meaningless because it's 100% predictable how they feel about anything.

right, never criticized.

Drilling for oil and gay marriage was golden MBBF.

I will say this that while McCain has run one of the worst Campaigns Ive ever witnessed and I thought Obama ran a terrific campaign, it is certainly possible that because they are in the SAME campaign season that their contrast of eachother makes the judgment more pronounced.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obviously we must encounter different liberals.

I run into more here (Georgia, not FOFC) who couldn't spell "drill" nor find Alaska on the map.

Case in point was the charming lady in line with my wife & I that we patiently helped understand how "all this voting stuff" worked; i.e.
"No, you're not required to vote for every office if you don't want to",
"Yes, you're allowed to vote only for President",
"This? It's called a sample ballot, it just shows you what you're going to see when you get inside"

And no, I didn't make any of those up.

While it is funny to see how ill-informed some voters are, I'm still glad that they bothered to take the time to vote. Some of these people that don't vote and then bitch about the politicians just drive me up a wall.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm still glad that they bothered to take the time to vote.

I had just the opposite reaction, although I have to admit I was as much bemused by it as anything, as there really wasn't anything shocking or even surprising to me about it. My wife on the other hand was downright apoplectic afterwards. Bless her heart, she can sometimes be a bit naive about the state of the world around her.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I had just the opposite reaction, although I have to admit I was as much bemused by it as anything, as there really wasn't anything shocking or even surprising to me about it. My wife on the other hand was downright apoplectic afterwards. Bless her heart, she can sometimes be a bit naive about the state of the world around her.

I disagree. There's only one way for her to learn how it goes and that's to be involved in the process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I disagree. There's only one way for her to learn how it goes and that's to be involved in the process.

If she hadn't bothered to learn by the age of 50 or so, she doesn't have as much business voting as my 10 year old ... nor any more than my cats for that matter.

[Tigercat]

This voting line is 10x longer and 10x worse than any dmv one i've been in. Stupid lack of voter disenfranchisement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

On a side note, I was pondering earlier whether a loss by Huckaby or Romney might have been better for the R's overall than the impending loss by McCain.

If you run with the general assumption that "they couldn't win with only the base so they had to go with McCain" to have a chance, then it seems possible they might have been better off losing 65-35 while getting their core motivated in order to help the down ballot races than losing 55-45 (just picking a number, not a prediction) with an unmotivated & demoralized base.

[Flasch186]

good point jon

[Alan T]

On a side note, I was pondering earlier whether a loss by Huckaby or Romney might have been better for the R's overall than the impending loss by McCain.

If you run with the general assumption that "they couldn't win with only the base so they had to go with McCain" to have a chance, then it seems possible they might have been better off losing 65-35 while getting their core motivated in order to help the down ballot races than losing 55-45 (just picking a number, not a prediction) with an unmotivated & demoralized base.

With the selection of Palin as a running mate and the complete pandering to the far right, they might as well have gone with Huckaby. I had considered voting for McCain for a while shortly after it appeared that he would be getting the nomination. His nomination to me was a sign that perhaps the GOP candidate would be one that would be closer to what I would like to see in the White House. Everything afterwards however has shown the opposite to be true.

[JonInMiddleGA]

good point jon

Thanks, although I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced of it myself quite yet.

To go down that road requires me to buy into a stipulation that I'm not sold on (i.e. "it had to be McCain") but if you work from that premise it seems to be you're suggesting that those influenced votes are about the person not the party. Well, we see how well that's going. Meanwhile you've got the least motivated & unhappiest group of voting R's in over 20 years, some number of which are almost certainly staying home having given this up for dead. If you're a down ballot R, that's a problem, and in theory you should get roughly the same number of votes from the "for the man, not the party" types regardless. Seems if I were an R who lost in the 1% range tonight I'd be pretty pissed about how things (beyond your control) worked out at the top of the ticket. Makes me wonder if there won't be some internal backlash over that situation two & then four years down the road.

And for our D's, I'm not suggesting this is an entirely unique situation by any means. I'm sure demotivated D's stayed home in the past, the difference being that I don't think it was so much because of the dissatisfaction with your nominee at the time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why does this kind of stupid crap always happen on election day in Philly? Had the same things happen in 2004 and 2006.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc

FWIW.....I'm sure this is only the start of the stupid stuff that's bound to occur today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why does this kind of stupid crap always happen on election day

Wasn't it Einstein who said something to the effect that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over & over and expecting different results?

[Neon_Chaos]

Thanks, although I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced of it myself quite yet.

To go down that road requires me to buy into a stipulation that I'm not sold on (i.e. "it had to be McCain") but if you work from that premise it seems to be you're suggesting that those influenced votes are about the person not the party. Well, we see how well that's going. Meanwhile you've got the least motivated & unhappiest group of voting R's in over 20 years, some number of which are almost certainly staying home having given this up for dead. If you're a down ballot R, that's a problem, and in theory you should get roughly the same number of votes from the "for the man, not the party" types regardless. Seems if I were an R who lost in the 1% range tonight I'd be pretty pissed about how things (beyond your control) worked out at the top of the ticket. Makes me wonder if there won't be some internal backlash over that situation two & then four years down the road.

And for our D's, I'm not suggesting this is an entirely unique situation by any means. I'm sure demotivated D's stayed home in the past, the difference being that I don't think it was so much because of the dissatisfaction with your nominee at the time.

Jon, in your opinion, had McCain chosen a running-mate with moderate leanings instead of Palin, would the republican base be enthusiastic about voting for republican candidate? I'm in the group that thinks that if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, this would be a much tighter race.

[sterlingice]

Last night, I started seeing Rev Wright ads again here in Virginia. Way to make the closing argument there with some subtle racism.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm in the group that thinks that if McCain hadn't chosen Palin, this would be a much tighter race.

If he hadn't chosen Palin, he'd be losing by 15+ rather than the 2-3 points he'll likely lose by today. Palin is the sole reason this election is still close.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Last night, I started seeing Rev Wright ads again here in Virginia. Way to make the closing argument there with some subtle racism.

SI

If there's anyone that can finalize an argument about racism, it's Reverend Wright.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, in your opinion, had McCain chosen a running-mate with moderate leanings instead of Palin, would the republican base be enthusiastic about voting for republican candidate?

Lord no. She's been the only source of (positive) enthusiasm I've seen during the entire campaign (since the nomination was determined). That's a case where just because it didn't work on me personally I can't say it didn't work at all.

Purely anecdotal but I think within the base she actually had at least as much impact on motivating women as she did on the religious right, possibly even moreso. I was quite surprised to hear the strong reactions when Palin was announced from the conservative women I knew, specifically those who aren't really RR types. And while it faded a little, the decrease in excitement was slight, no more than you would expect once any candidate loses that new car smell. Even more surprising to me was that these were women I knew to be only lukewarm about, say, Elizabeth Dole but were over the moon about Palin. I can't explain what chord she struck with them -- age, look, backstory, whatever -- but she definitely made a positive impact.

[Flasch186]

Why does this kind of stupid crap always happen on election day in Philly? Had the same things happen in 2004 and 2006.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/cf47766b-5a6d-44ab-95e7-ce60631bcadc

FWIW.....I'm sure this is only the start of the stupid stuff that's bound to occur today.

Sentence #2 went a little something like this so I stopped reading. Like the attackes on door knockers, probably happens to both if it happens at all.

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening.

[Flasch186]

If he hadn't chosen Palin, he'd be losing by 15+ rather than the 2-3 points he'll likely lose by today. Palin is the sole reason this election is still close.

According to which polls?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Last night, I started seeing Rev Wright ads again here in Virginia.

Oddly enough, I saw them for the very first time last night myself. But they were national spots (i.e. network cable) not local.

[Subby]

We had manual scantron ballots at my polling place after years of electronic voting machines. At first I was kind of irritated, but upon reflection (particularly after having watched "Hacking Democracy" a few weeks ago) I feel a little more confident that my vote will be properly tabulated. They actually ran my ballot through the vote counter before I could leave.

Of course, with the proper motivation, this system is probably just as flawed as e-voting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

According to which polls?

Poll margin minus Bradley Effect I would imagine.

FWIW, I personally think the final margin will be somewhere between the two points, with the effect reduced by increased black turnout & a lower than expected likely-GOP-voter turnout in states where the race is already lost, but I believe the math works out about right to get things to around 3% give or take.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

According to which polls?

I've consistently stated that I believe the race will end in a 2-3 point margin and that the 6-7 point margin predicted by most of the polls is statistically incorrect due to poll weighting. You've been in this thread most of the time. I'd think you'd remember that has been my belief all along.

And if you're of a different belief, well, you'll get your answer one way or another in less than 24 hours.

[ISiddiqui]

According to which polls?

I believe he's probably taking into account the ~6-8% lead by Obama and adding in a potential Bradley Effect.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And I certainly don't encounter the same liberals as you, Jon (thank the Lord).

Just for the heck of it, want to trade batches for a few years?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess my point was that often times extreme right Republicans use their morality as a crutch to explain their positions, which is why they get tagged with the "intolerance" label.

Fixed. While the far right bitches more loudly than their moderate cohorts, they are just a portion of the party. But it's easier to paint either party in the color of their extremist brethern to polarize the issue than to address the issue that many on both sides are annoyed by the extremists in their party.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I believe he's probably taking into account the ~6-8% lead by Obama and adding in a potential Bradley Effect.

Just for the record, I don't believe in the Bradley effect. I just believe that a lot of the polling methodology in this election has been flawed. We'll see soon enough.

[sterlingice]

I've consistently stated that I believe the race will end in a 2-3 point margin and that the 6-7 point margin predicted by most of the polls is statistically incorrect due to poll weighting. You've been in this thread most of the time. I'd think you'd remember that has been my belief all along.

And if you're of a different belief, well, you'll get your answer one way or another in less than 24 hours.

Say, never saw your prediction over in the predictions thread...

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's just the side that the opposition puts front and center lately.

Fixed again. It's election 101. The liberals toss the religious red-meat out to their supporters, while the conservatives toss the socialist red-meat out to their supporters. Nothing has changed lately. This has been going on for decades.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Say, never saw your prediction over in the predictions thread...

SI

I honestly don't know much about the local races, so I don't know how well I would even do. I'll try to put something together if I have time to dig into that stuff.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Thanks for continuing to fix my posts for me, but I don't agree on this one.

Did the opposition nominate Sarah Palin?

No, but there was bound to be a candidate like that, much like Obama was a nod to the extreme left on the Democrat ticket. If it wasn't Palin, it would have been Romney or Huckabee. Same old stuff. The moderate portion of the party had McCain. Just because one part of the ticket has some basis in moral value politics does not mean that the majority of the party supporters hold those beliefs. Most Republicans are not moral Republicans, much like most liberals are not socialistic in nature.

[sachmo71]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How about:

Ask a liberal why we should not be in Iraq and the answer you will receive is some version of "because war is wrong."

not really a liberal, but from what I've heard, the answer isn't "because war is wrong", it's "this war was unnecessary". Big difference.

[Fighter of Foo]

If he hadn't chosen Palin, he'd be losing by 15+ rather than the 2-3 points he'll likely lose by today. Palin is the sole reason this election is still close.

I don't enjoy picking on you so much, but damn dude, try and post something in this thread that's not completely and totally false (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6166666&page=1) once in a while...

Forty-six percent of likely voters now say having Palin on the ticket makes them less likely to support McCain -- up 14 points in just the past month and more than double what it was in early September. And among those who call the candidates' age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.

[Subby]

No, but there was bound to be a candidate like that, much like Obama was a nod to the extreme left on the Democrat ticket.
That's ridiculous. Obama went through the primary process. He wasn't placed on the ticket.

[Big Fo]

MBBF, the social conservatives drive the bus of the Republican Party to a greater extent than you're willing to admit IMO. They're the cause of McCain picking a VP candidate he'd barely met and his awkward lurch towards the right on policy over the past two years.

Obama a nod to the extreme left of Democrats :lol: :lol: If the far left ran the Dems we'd have nominated Kucinich.

[DaddyTorgo]

just want molson to know - as a thoughtful voter, i did actually vote for a republican, and i didn't just look down the ballot and see "red/blue"

honestly, I would have possibly voted for more, but all of the incumbents running unopposed were democrats (there were only a couple contested races), so that kind of tied my hand.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama a nod to the extreme left of Democrats :lol: :lol: If the far left ran the Dems we'd have nominated Kucinich.

I said 'extreme left', not 'nutball wacko left'.

[molson]

just want molson to know - as a thoughtful voter, i did actually vote for a republican, and i didn't just look down the ballot and see "red/blue"

honestly, I would have possibly voted for more, but all of the incumbents running unopposed were democrats (there were only a couple contested races), so that kind of tied my hand.

I didn't mean to say I thought you were a sheep and/or whatever else. I don't remember exactly what set me off but apologize for any offense.

[Fighter of Foo]

Just for the record, I don't believe in the Bradley effect. I just believe that a lot of the polling methodology in this election has been flawed. We'll see soon enough.

And post a damn prediction like the rest of us if you want to continue to bitch about this.

[Flasch186]

I've consistently stated that I believe the race will end in a 2-3 point margin and that the 6-7 point margin predicted by most of the polls is statistically incorrect due to poll weighting. You've been in this thread most of the time. I'd think you'd remember that has been my belief all along.

And if you're of a different belief, well, you'll get your answer one way or another in less than 24 hours.

oh that enigmatic Bradley effect. Well then it's simply a prediction at this point....I wish you wouldve gone the "IMO" Prediction route throughout this thread instead of using polls when it helped the cause or sparked some sort of "rally" effect.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't enjoy picking on you so much, but damn dude, try and post something in this thread that's not completely and totally false (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6166666&page=1) once in a while...

Forty-six percent of likely voters now say having Palin on the ticket makes them less likely to support McCain -- up 14 points in just the past month and more than double what it was in early September. And among those who call the candidates' age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.

Yes, an ABC poll is obviously 'proof'. This campaign would have been dead in the water at that point with a selection of Romney or Huckabee. You're insane to think otherwise. I like McCain, but there's no way I'd vote for the ticket with either of those guys on it. I would have cast my vote for Obama.

[molson]

I don't enjoy picking on you so much, but damn dude, try and post something in this thread that's not completely and totally false (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=6166666&page=1) once in a while...

Forty-six percent of likely voters now say having Palin on the ticket makes them less likely to support McCain -- up 14 points in just the past month and more than double what it was in early September. And among those who call the candidates' age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.

Are there similar polls for strictly undecided voters, or McCain + undecided voters? I don't think an Obama voter answer to that question tells us much.

McCain probably would have been better off with a slightly more polished unknown, but she was worth the risk. He wasn't in a position to play it safe. She would have been a success for him only if she answered some questions from Katie Couric better (not saying that COST him the election, but I think she would have been a net gain for him without those flubs).

Hucabee or Romney would have been a disaster, and I think it's revisionist history to argue anything different. The Republican brand is damaged, and he NEEDED someone new and relatively unknown, ideally someone who went against party lines. Palin really was quite perfect on paper, if only she had maybe one more term as governor. He really neutered the one big advantage he had in this election, experience. I feel dirty when I try to argue how ridiculous it is that someone with Obama's weak credentials is this close to the presidency (I put him at approximately the 150th most qualified Democrat in the US). You just can't say that with a straight face when McCain goes with Palin as VP.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And post a damn prediction like the rest of us if you want to continue to bitch about this.

LOL.....there's some awfully angry liberals in this thread. Take a medicinal weed hit and calm down.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

oh that enigmatic Bradley effect. Well then it's simply a prediction at this point....I wish you wouldve gone the "IMO" Prediction route throughout this thread instead of using polls when it helped the cause or sparked some sort of "rally" effect.

I didn't say anything about the 'Bradley Effect'.

[molson]

LOL.....there's some awfully angry liberals in this thread. Take a medicinal weed hit and calm down.

The stress of being able to control government and not just complain about it is clearly setting in.

[Logan]

Yes, an ABC poll is obviously 'proof'. This campaign would have been dead in the water at that point with a selection of Romney or Huckabee. You're insane to think otherwise. I like McCain, but there's no way I'd vote for the ticket with either of those guys on it. I would have cast my vote for Obama.

Interestingly enough, most of my friends and coworkers are like me, independent from a party, and the majority of them would have voted for McCain instead of Obama if Romney was on the ticket (but definitely not Huckabee).

Just one example out of a mid-20s group of NYCers, of course.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interestingly enough, most of my friends and coworkers are like me, independent from a party, and the majority of them would have voted for McCain instead of Obama if Romney was on the ticket (but definitely not Huckabee).

Just one example out of a mid-20s group of NYCers, of course.

That wouldn't surprise me. McCain would have performed better in New England with Romney, but likely still would have lost most of those states. It wouldn't have helped much from an electoral college standpoint.

[Fighter of Foo]

Are there similar polls for strictly undecided voters, or McCain + undecided voters? I don't think an Obama voter answer to that question tells us much.

If it's 46% of likely voters you can roughly sort out the breakdown. Or even better, go look at the poll itself!! I linked to it. They do crosstabs.

[Flasch186]

I didn't say anything about the 'Bradley Effect'.

Then you better call the cavalry. Where are you pulling your numbers from? A guess?

I think, my prediction, is that you'll truly have to rethink your ability to analyze and predict when this thing is over.

[Crim]

Last night, I started seeing Rev Wright ads again here in Virginia. Way to make the closing argument there with some subtle racism.

SI

Why does negative advertising against Obama have to be classified as racism, SI? There's plenty of Bill Ayers stuff out there as well. Is the good reverend off-limits simply because he's black?

[Fighter of Foo]

The stress of being able to control government and not just complain about it is clearly setting in.

Yeah, because Obama's my guy. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :lol:

[Crim]

If he hadn't chosen Palin, he'd be losing by 15+ rather than the 2-3 points he'll likely lose by today. Palin is the sole reason this election is still close.

plus one

[JPhillips]

Are there similar polls for strictly undecided voters, or McCain + undecided voters? I don't think an Obama voter answer to that question tells us much.

McCain probably would have been better off with a slightly more polished unknown, but she was worth the risk. He wasn't in a position to play it safe. She would have been a success for him only if she answered some questions from Katie Couric better (not saying that COST him the election, but I think she would have been a net gain for him without those flubs).

Hucabee or Romney would have been a disaster, and I think it's revisionist history to argue anything different. The Republican brand is damaged, and he NEEDED someone new and relatively unknown, ideally someone who went against party lines. Palin really was quite perfect on paper, if only she had maybe one more term as governor. He really neutered the one big advantage he had in this election, experience. I feel dirty when I try to argue how ridiculous it is that someone with Obama's weak credentials is this close to the presidency (I put him at approximately the 150th most qualified Democrat in the US). You just can't say that with a straight face when McCain goes with Palin as VP.

I think Huckabee could have been a very good pick. There's not a dime's worth of difference between he and Palin on social issues, but he's far more appealing on the stump. He and McCain also have great chemistry and could have worked together much better than McCain/Palin. IMO Huckabee is the best politician in the Republican party.

If McCain loses, the fight between Huckabee and Palin for the religious right will be brutal.

[Klinglerware]

On a side note, I was pondering earlier whether a loss by Huckaby or Romney might have been better for the R's overall than the impending loss by McCain.

If you run with the general assumption that "they couldn't win with only the base so they had to go with McCain" to have a chance, then it seems possible they might have been better off losing 65-35 while getting their core motivated in order to help the down ballot races than losing 55-45 (just picking a number, not a prediction) with an unmotivated & demoralized base.

It's an interesting question, assuming the Republicans lose across the board today. If that happens, there will likely be some debate as to where the Republican Party should go next, in terms of strategy and philosophy. If the Republicans lose, they will have to answer some hard questions about whether their current strategic philosophy for winning elections is still tenable (I don't know the answer to this short term--it could just be bad luck and circumstances this time, or it could be long-term demographic change already rearing its head).

I would say that a Huckabee/Romney loss would have accelerated this discussion, since the Republican party would have fielded a candidate that "fit the mold" of their ideal candidate. And since the ideal candidate lost, there would then be greater debate on whether the current "ideal" and associated strategies should be challenged.

Since McCain does not play as well to the party base, a McCain loss would likely delay this discussion. The recriminations would first be about whether a McCain ticket was the right ticket to successfully implement Republican electoral strategy, rather than whether that strategy was optimal in the first place.

If the Republican losses (if any) are due to short-term circumstances, perhaps it doesn't matter. But if there are real and lasting shifts in national opinion and demographics (e.g., appealing primarily to white-conservatives may not be enough, moving forward, if the voting pool is becoming less white), the Republicans will have to retool if they want to win long-term. McCain on the ticket (whether he wins or loses), delays this retooling.

[Fighter of Foo]

Then you better call the cavalry. Where are you pulling your numbers from? A guess?

I think, my prediction, is that you'll truly have to rethink your ability to analyze and predict when this thing is over.

My prediction is that MBBF is too chickenshit to post one.

[JPhillips]

Then you better call the cavalry. Where are you pulling your numbers from? A guess?

I think, my prediction, is that you'll truly have to rethink your ability to analyze and predict when this thing is over.

If Obama wins by 7 it will only be because the election oversampled Obama voters.

[Flasch186]

LOL

[Crim]

Just for the heck of it, want to trade batches for a few years?

funny!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Then you better call the cavalry. Where are you pulling your numbers from? A guess?

I think, my prediction, is that you'll truly have to rethink your ability to analyze and predict when this thing is over.

The information is readily available in this thread and most will tell you that I've restated it far too often, so I'm shocked that you haven't seen it yet. Basically stated, the weights being assigned in polling data are overstated in the favor of the Democrats by a margin much larger than it should be. I've provided a plethora of statistical data to back up my claim. Feel free to go through it if you choose to do so, but don't act like I haven't used information to back up my claim. That's simply not true.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My prediction is that MBBF is too chickenshit to post one.

Y'know, that was pretty much uncalled for.

I don't recall any requirement for a prediction being a part of this thread, and what difference does some wild ass guess from anybody here actually make? Let's be real, this thread is ultimately for entertainment purposes only and if coming up with a concrete prediction doesn't entertain somebody {shrug}.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Obama wins by 7 it will only be because the election oversampled Obama voters.

Truer words may never have been spoken.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

My prediction is that MBBF is too chickenshit to post one.

Ah, to be 27 again, be right all the time, and instigate pissing matches on a message board. Those were the days. :D

For the record, my wealth of knowledge is only exceeded by my wife (who is always right) and my child (who is sure she is always right).

[DaddyTorgo]

I didn't mean to say I thought you were a sheep and/or whatever else. I don't remember exactly what set me off but apologize for any offense.

No worries man. I know tensions get a bit heated in this thread at times, but we've always enjoyed good dialogue in other threads, and I'd certainly buy you a beer if we met up. I honestly didn't take any offense at all. Steamed for a minute, and Foz tried to get me worked up, but I said "nah, molson's an alright guy, no worries"

Probably could have removed your name in my most recent post and just said "just fyi everyone" or whatever

[DaddyTorgo]

Y'know, that was pretty much uncalled for.

I don't recall any requirement for a prediction being a part of this thread, and what difference does some wild ass guess from anybody here actually make? Let's be real, this thread is ultimately for entertainment purposes only and if coming up with a concrete prediction doesn't entertain somebody {shrug}.

+1

pretty much uncalled for Fighter of Foo

[Flasch186]

The information is readily available in this thread and most will tell you that I've restated it far too often, so I'm shocked that you haven't seen it yet. Basically stated, the weights being assigned in polling data are overstated in the favor of the Democrats by a margin much larger than it should be. I've provided a plethora of statistical data to back up my claim. Feel free to go through it if you choose to do so, but don't act like I haven't used information to back up my claim. That's simply not true.

right, the polls are crap. The poll of polls is crap. and the poll of the poll of the polls simply exacerbates the problem since the poll of the poll of the polls was run by the liberal media. gotcha.


EDIT: unless the poll is used to show that McCain is making a comeback.

[Crim]

And among those who call the candidates' age an important factor in their vote, more, 61 percent, say Palin makes them less likely to back McCain.[/I]

But isn't that like saying that among people who were not going to vote for McCain, they also are not going to vote for Palin?

[JonInMiddleGA]

But isn't that like saying that among people who were not going to vote for McCain, they also are not going to vote for Palin?

Nah.

They're just not going to vote for McCain.
They're really not going to vote for Palin.

[Fighter of Foo]

Ah, to be 27 again, be right all the time, and instigate pissing matches on a message board. Those were the days. :D

For the record, my wealth of knowledge is only exceeded by my wife (who is always right) and my child (who is sure she is always right).

:)

Just if you, me or anyone wants to go on pontificating for weeks upon end about what's going to happen and why, one should at least be willing to back it up.

That goes for anything.

Take the poll I posted about above. If it's wrong then show me! I'd be happy to see what was wrong and where.

As we say in finance, Hope ain't a strategy.

[flere-imsaho]

Ask a conservative why we should be in Iraq and the answer you will receive is some version of "because Bush was right."

Modified to indicate an equally unsupported view from the left.

Obviously we must encounter different liberals.

I run into more here (Georgia, not FOFC) who couldn't spell "drill" nor find Alaska on the map.

FWIW, your liberals sound like my conservatives here in Illinois (especially in the collar counties).

Maybe we could say that there are idiots of every political persuasion?

I will say this that while McCain has run one of the worst Campaigns Ive ever witnessed

Interesting idea. Was McCain 2008 a worse campaign than Dole 1996, Dukakis 1988, Mondale 1984 or Carter 1980 (I'm going to assume these are the ones in your lifetime)?

And for our D's, I'm not suggesting this is an entirely unique situation by any means. I'm sure demotivated D's stayed home in the past, the difference being that I don't think it was so much because of the dissatisfaction with your nominee at the time.

Gore 2000 springs to mind, honestly. Of course, if you were to draw a distinction between demotivated (GOP voters in 2008) and unmotivated (Democrat voters in 2000) then yes, it's not the same.

Carter 1980 was probably a case of "demotivated", though.

If McCain loses, the fight between Huckabee and Palin for the religious right will be brutal.

I'm going to disagree. Huckabee's a much better politician with a quasi-national network already in place, and hasn't received anywhere near the amount of negative press Palin has already. In a hypothetical nomination race I think he wins over their shared base, and also picks up some GOP moderates.

[Crim]

I feel dirty when I try to argue how ridiculous it is that someone with Obama's weak credentials is this close to the presidency (I put him at approximately the 150th most qualified Democrat in the US). You just can't say that with a straight face when McCain goes with Palin as VP.

An excellent point, and one I've made angrily to my friends after the Palin pick was announced. I like Sarah, I just think that her inexperience really hurts the campaign, because it takes the "Obama's not ready" discussion off the table.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

right, the polls are crap. The poll of polls is crap. and the poll of the poll of the polls simply exacerbates the problem since the poll of the poll of the polls was run by the liberal media. gotcha.

EDIT: unless the poll is used to show that McCain is making a comeback.

Once again, that's simply not true. I have been very consistent in saying that there was a bias in the polls. Not once have I used any motivation regarding McCain or a comeback as a basis for that reasoning. I have used the information available to back up my claim. Not only that, but I called out the recent Fox poll as having a weight that was also inconsistently weighted towards Republicans, but don't let that get in the way of another rant based on emotion rather than actual discussion based on the statistical analysis being provided by multiple sources.

[Crim]

If Obama wins by 7 it will only be because the election oversampled Obama voters.

You jest, but I fear this exact thing.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll say this for the 4085th time in these threads over the past two years (JPhillips has said it a lot) but

judgment + character > experience

especially given that the relevant "experience" for President has proven difficult to define.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's nice to see that not only the left has difficulty admitting it has lost an election.

{scratches head}

Maybe I've missed something but I think I've seen a grand total of one prediction of McCain victory all day here.

Margin? I absolutely believe it'll be influenced by vote fraud.
Outcome? Haven't seen that asserted here.

[Autumn]

Obama as a nod to the extreme left? You obviously don't hang around with many liberals if that's your slant. I am an independent of the extreme left persuasion, and I can tell you that from our point of view Obama is very close to center.

It seems to me Palin as VP was a choice that just accentuated the polarization of hte country. It seems to me that the GOP base is enthusiastic about her, as seen by those living in my area. And the democrat base is completely turned off by her. The amount of mania in one group feeds the mania in the other.

I'm not sure how much effect she's having on those who weren't already decidedly in one camp or another.

[flere-imsaho]

BTW, I don't want to prematurely cut this thread short, but maybe we should start to migrate conversation over to the "Who Did you Vote For (http://osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=68498) thread for results?

[Crim]

right, the polls are crap. The poll of polls is crap. and the poll of the poll of the polls simply exacerbates the problem since the poll of the poll of the polls was run by the liberal media. gotcha.


EDIT: unless the poll is used to show that McCain is making a comeback.

It pains me to agree with Flasch on anything politics-related ( :p ), but this sickens me from both sides. You get the talking heads on the left and right downplaying the import or accuracy of any poll that does not favor them, and trumpeting it from the highest hill if they find even one poll to cherry-pick that supports their agenda.

Sean Hannity is the absolute worst of the bunch in this regard, IMO.

[Crim]

Nah.

They're just not going to vote for McCain.
They're really not going to vote for Palin.

heh

[flere-imsaho]

Margin? I absolutely believe it'll be influenced by vote fraud.
Outcome? Haven't seen that asserted here.

I think Crim's probably the first, at least here at FOFC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's nice to see that not only the left has difficulty admitting it has lost an election.

I haven't seen a single prediction where someone said McCain WOULD win. Link? From what I've seen, I think the left still has that in the bag.

[Crim]

:)

Just if you, me or anyone wants to go on pontificating for weeks upon end about what's going to happen and why, one should at least be willing to back it up.

That goes for anything.

Take the poll I posted about above. If it's wrong then show me! I'd be happy to see what was wrong and where.

As we say in finance, Hope ain't a strategy.

Oh yeah? How about Change?

[Flasch186]

Once again, that's simply not true. I have been very consistent in saying that there was a bias in the polls. Not once have I used any motivation regarding McCain or a comeback as a basis for that reasoning. I have used the information available to back up my claim. Not only that, but I called out the recent Fox poll as having a weight that was also inconsistently weighted towards Republicans, but don't let that get in the way of another rant based on emotion rather than actual discussion based on the statistical analysis being provided by multiple sources.

Thats horseshit. When a 1 day poll came out showing a tightening race in some state you threw it on the wall and touted it. You mentioned nothing when the same poll came out a few days later showing an enormous spread.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It pains me to agree with Flasch on anything politics-related ( :p ), but this sickens me from both sides. You get the talking heads on the left and right downplaying the import or accuracy of any poll that does not favor them, and trumpeting it from the highest hill if they find even one poll to cherry-pick that supports their agenda.

To be fair, that hasn't occurred in this thread. Flasch obviously hasn't been paying attention to my posts if he thinks that I was presenting my statistical analysis solely with the intention of painting a better picture for McCain. That's simply not the case.

But I agree with you that the talking heads on both sides are only presenting the cases that favor their candidate.

[Flasch186]

Wow, just wow.

[JPhillips]

{scratches head}

Maybe I've missed something but I think I've seen a grand total of one prediction of McCain victory all day here.

Margin? I absolutely believe it'll be influenced by vote fraud.
Outcome? Haven't seen that asserted here.

There hasn't been proof of large scale election fraud(enough to make a difference) in decades. Voter fraud, stealing votes, machines being hacked, etc. are all minor problems at worst.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Thats horseshit. When a 1 day poll came out showing a tightening race in some state you threw it on the wall and touted it. You mentioned nothing when the same poll came out a few days later showing an enormous spread.

And once again, that's simply not true. I have been very consistent in going over the numbers in each poll and saying how I felt about the information provided. Flere even noticed it. He started posting links for me so I could look over the raw data. I realize that you're an emotion driven poster, but your claims have no basis in truth given the discussions in this thread.