Pollster.com

See! McCain leads by six in MO and it's yellow, but Obama leads within the margin of error in MI and its blue?

give mark time to fix it.
but anyway,,, more of bad news for king bama.

marctx the map is based on a *number* of polls, not just one. It is indeed weighted toward the latest polls but does not ignore earlier ones altogether.

same kind of stats as the Missouri poll.
much stronger 'very unfavorable' for obama than mccain and the seismic shift now of the undecided become leaners for mccain.

more comedic ads.. nothing deflates pomposity like comic parody.

As David_T says, the colors are determined by the regression of multiple polls, not just one. The Pollster.com average for MI has Obama up by over 5%, while in MO, McCain is up by less than 3%, even after these Rasmussen polls.
By the way, both Rasmussen polls - MO and MI - have the two candidates within MOE (+-4.5% on each candidate's support levels, so a statistically significant lead would be over 9%).

boskop you seem to know more about this than me. But these numbers are better than June but not as good as July for Obama? The good news for McCain is that the "ready to lead" thing and not experienced enough is sticking to Obama. I can't believe we will have another 3 months of a referendum on Obama.

McCain really needs to steal Mich. I thought it would be closer here....McCain maybe seriously looking at Romney to make whatever play he cn for Mich. Mich is the best hope in my opinion for a McCain pickup from 2004....an outside shot at PA, but doubtful.

But again the economy is the #1 issue. Obama will lose the independents and even some leaners if he doesn't get his act together on energy. If he goes into election day opposed to drilling, he will lose the indy's and some leaners, he'd be better off taking the flak for flip flopping on drilling than being opposed to it on election day. McCain is going to pound him day after day on this issue and with over 70% in favor of more drilling, it puts Obama in a weak position on energy and the economy.

I think obama will win michigan and pa if i were mcCain i would be very worried about ohio. if obama wins pa,michigan,and ohio it is all over. one state that i can't stop thinking that obama may steal is indiana. mcCain has not spent time or money there. just my normal guy opinion.

Regarding the drilling issue, the following is the best summary of it, within the context of this year's election.

If you're going to read it, please read all of it. I'm wondering what conservatives think of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?hp

Stillow: Romney will be forced upon McCain. Barring a racheting up of instability with Iran. Gas will be back to about $3.20 by election day. The price of Oil is falling like a stone, down to $116 today. Maybe $100 by Labour Day. With regards the Drilling thing, Congress is going to put together a compromise package with more selective drilling and nuances which obama will support. I know that the country is absolutely dumb as to the effect and timelines of this drilling.

actually if he's rising in mi why bother antagonizing the leaners and the independents with romney?

(even though we know romney was pretty darn liberal as was the entire slate of repub hopefuls this year.)_

that sprint time slate of wannabes makes you wonder about the erosion of the hard republican base towards the center as an indicator right there of ...NO HAIR PIN TURNS!!

i mean guiliani? mccain? romney? huckabee? soft on immigration, soft on same sex marriages, 'no' to tax cuts, a huge rebate check for health care choice, open minded about education . well, not all wrapped up into one single candidate but hey, you get the picture.

and hillary? she was walking hand in hand on many issues with mccain. and kennedy. things were starting to look truly non partisan for a bit. where was it said there had to be two parties in american politics? maybe it should just go back to the original idea of counting the votes winner takes the head slot underbidder gets the second.

but now obama is the one rattling the grenades and motoring up the daisy cutters for afgahnistan (HIS WAR). no more peacenik anti war changeling guy this any more.

i wonder when the MSM starts to pick up on this. that he has stepped on his own pacifist persona and is looking more hawkish than mccain.

add to that the fact that al maliki just shook hands over a five year withdrawal in iraq confirming the steady as she goes platform of mccain.

obama is not having a good day today and i'd hope he brings enough arugula and twinkies for his entire 200 in salaried staff.

but i do hope he gets rest cause he looks like hell and i love a good cock fight.

THIS IS THE REPUBLICANS LAST SHOT AT THE WHITEHOUSE,BECAUSE IN 2012 THE WHITE VOTE WILL ONLY BE 70%,THE MINORITY VOTE WILL BE 30%,ITS GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR THE GOP,THATS WHY THEY ARE PASSING THESE LAWS REQUIRING A PHOTO ID,THIS IS A TOPIC THE GOP OR THE MEDIA DONOT WANT ANYONE TO KNOW,BY 2024 THE WHITE VOTE WILL BE ONLY 62%.UNLESS THE GOP START FOCUSING ON OTHER GROUPS THEY WILL NEVER CAPTURE THE WHITEHOUSE AGAIN,THE LATINO VOTE WILL BE 18% BY 2020,ALSO THE BLACK VOTE WILL BE 15%,RIGHT NOW IN 2008 THE MINORITY VOTE WILL BE 26%.IN 1968 THE WHITE VOTE WAS 95%,IN 1980 IT DEEPED TO 90%,IN 1996 IT WENT TO 83%,IN 2004 IT DEEPED TO 77%,WHAT AM TRYING TO SAY IS THE GOP IS RUNNING OUT OF OPTIONS,THEY ARE GOING TO NEED MORE THEN THE WHITE VOTE,OBAMA ALREADY HAVE 21% OF THE VOTE IN HIS HIP POCKET,THAT MEANS MCCAIN HAVE TO GET 60% OF THE WHITE VOTE TO EVEN HAVE A CHANCE,THATS WHY I DONT PAY ATTENTION TO THESE POLLS,THE DEMOGRAPHICS IS NOT ON THE GOP SIDE,IN 2004 BUSH GOT 59% OF THE WHITE VOTE IN BARLEY WON,SO YOU GUYS GO IN LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS,THE GOP IN 2012 HAVE TO GET 62% OF THE WHITE VOTE,ITS GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY ONLY GETS WHITE VOTERS,LIKE I SAID THIS IS A TOPIC THE MEDIA DONOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

THIS IS THE REPUBLICANS LAST SHOT AT THE WHITEHOUSE,BECAUSE IN 2012 THE WHITE VOTE WILL ONLY BE 70%,THE MINORITY VOTE WILL BE 30%,ITS GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR THE GOP,THATS WHY THEY ARE PASSING THESE LAWS REQUIRING A PHOTO ID,THIS IS A TOPIC THE GOP OR THE MEDIA DONOT WANT ANYONE TO KNOW,BY 2024 THE WHITE VOTE WILL BE ONLY 62%.UNLESS THE GOP START FOCUSING ON OTHER GROUPS THEY WILL NEVER CAPTURE THE WHITEHOUSE AGAIN,THE LATINO VOTE WILL BE 18% BY 2020,ALSO THE BLACK VOTE WILL BE 15%,RIGHT NOW IN 2008 THE MINORITY VOTE WILL BE 26%.IN 1968 THE WHITE VOTE WAS 95%,IN 1980 IT DEEPED TO 90%,IN 1996 IT WENT TO 83%,IN 2004 IT DEEPED TO 77%,WHAT AM TRYING TO SAY IS THE GOP IS RUNNING OUT OF OPTIONS,THEY ARE GOING TO NEED MORE THEN THE WHITE VOTE,OBAMA ALREADY HAVE 21% OF THE VOTE IN HIS HIP POCKET,THAT MEANS MCCAIN HAVE TO GET 60% OF THE WHITE VOTE TO EVEN HAVE A CHANCE,THATS WHY I DONT PAY ATTENTION TO THESE POLLS,THE DEMOGRAPHICS IS NOT ON THE GOP SIDE,IN 2004 BUSH GOT 59% OF THE WHITE VOTE IN BARLEY WON,SO YOU GUYS GO IN LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS,THE GOP IN 2012 HAVE TO GET 62% OF THE WHITE VOTE,ITS GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY ONLY GETS WHITE VOTERS,LIKE I SAID THIS IS A TOPIC THE MEDIA DONOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

@josephj

I just read it and its typical partisan rhetoric, you can get the same thing on the other side. But I'm telling yhose of you on the left, Obama better flop on this, it won't hurt your Congressionalgains this cycle as this article mentioned, but it will put McCain in the WH. The attempt to explain how more oil won't decrease prices is to nuanced and to meshy, people won't try to understand it....they will go with what they can clearly see which is more oil=lower prices. The article was right, energy is a big issue for the GOP and they will hammer Obama on it all election, his only defense is to flop on it thus takign the issue away from thE GOP.
Personally I want the left to think drillig won't help and you want Obama to stay opposed to it.......I think its very good for MCCain if the Dems stay opposed to it.

Romney is the establishment's favorite son. I don't see on these numbers McCain picking up Michigan. Looks to me that Indiana and Iowa are more likely going Obama's way. This is very early days and the key for Obama is Mid-West and West organization on the ground to get the vote out. These polls don't quite look "kosher" to me, this 18-29 demographic appears much more energised this time round and the ethnic minorities.

@thoughtful

I also thin kthe price will continue to fall, but the GOP will make the argument that its the threat of more drilling....since oil is traded on the futures market, the price is determined by what the speculators think the price will be in the future. More oil means cheaper oil, that will be the argument up until election day by the right. the left will make the argument its less demand. I think this one goes to the GOP. And I honetly beleive Obama loses unless he comes out for more oil production domestically. Because e are decades away from finding a replacement for oil and less demand and conservation cannot keep prices low very long, supply needs to increase short and mid term. With renewables coming online in the long term. Its a valid topic to debate, but i think the GOP comes out on top on this one with the folks.

Drilling may not be quite the issue by election day. We are in the phony war period and as I say it will be bundled in a way into a new energy proposal based on the crossparty 10. However, Obama will be labeled as being against drilling. McCain will be labeled as being bought by Big Oil!

@eugene

I don't think anyone disagrees with the changing demographics being much better for the left. There ar several reasons for this....but I think everyone sees the GOP as shrinking in the near future.

@Stillow GOP struck a rich vein with this one!Their Candidate is fairly well frayed in a number of ways. We have only had the first round skirmishes I actually think Obama is doing rather well as an undoubted inexperienced African American from the left side of the liberal wing of the party!

Personally , Having lived in Tribal Territory, quite a few years ago, on the Pakistan/Afghan border. Obama is going to have to develop a much more sophisticated view of the theatre than his McCainist, only fools rush in, so far to date. He will because he's bright. These politicians will say whatever it takes to get power.

I agree Stillow on drilling issue. It will hurt Obama if he opposes it without coming with an alternative. With gas price around $4, people would be willing to drill their backyards. What Obama and Democrats can do is to come up with a plan that includes drilling and other things which Republicans, McCain and oil companies will say "No". Such as "oil from offshore drilling will be sold in the US and oil companies that lease oilfields will increase refinery capacity by 15% by 2016". This would be a nice counter-punch.

@SwingVote

Ya the Dems have some options for a punch back in the face, but it all includes drilling which I think they will be to stubborn to support....and it will cost them. The far left has been seeking highprices for 20 years to lower demand...they are just in a badspot on htis issue. The GOP wants a vote on a bill that includes drilling, investment in alternatives and conservation efforts....and Pelosi won't allow the vote...it will hurt Obama.

:thoughtful
caution//
that last sentence is an invitation for a humongo pile on even though you didnt really mean it to sound that way.

i agree that as michigan sidles over to mccain he doesnt need handsome ole romney as much. it's hard to figure who'd he antagonize more, the right base who never trusted him which is why he went down in flames, or the independents who bought into his primary rhetoric and believe he's a dyed in the wool republican aristocrat.

if the polls are showing that mccain can edge out obama on his own muscle, it frees the guy up for a maverick choice in character with who the guy really is.

so i am beginning to worry he'll take eeyore, aka lieberman which would add nothing to mccain's lackluster charmless campaign stump.

i mean if fox clocks five times the obama footage to mccain as it is, tell me if they'd do any better with lieberman versus bayh?

no, mccain has to wait out the dem convention and act accordingly and not make a grab for michigan based on romney.

obama has essentially lost his anti war evangelista platform. he's come out as the war hawk between the two, wanting to work things up into a frothy mess in afghanistan. i can hear those daisy cutters humming already.

and al maliki just yanked the rug out from under his 16th month withdrawal plan by signing off, literally, to a five year plan that backs up mccain's measured approach.

i have totally no idea who the guy should take as veep oher than ms alaska. now that would shake obama's nerves to the bone and hillarites would finally have a perch to finally come to roost.

Obama at +4 is consistent with recent polls. 538 has Michigan projected as Obama +2.8

Michigan is a must win for Obama. If Obama loses Michigan, he most likely loses Ohio and the election. Look for Obama to nail down Michigan as his first priority, then Ohio.

Let's see if I have this right. Obama moves up to 49% in poll. MI has 10 million people. Almost 6 million registered voters. Obama leads by 4%, that is 240,000 registered voters.

Oh yeah - that's close. A hair's breath away.

Terrible news for BO. My goodness - he is only leading by 4% in one poll. Excuse me while I call home to see if the falling sky has damaged my roof.

Only ignorant Maccananites think losing a state by 4% is a victory for them.

I used to blame Bill for dividing this country so terribly. He rescued the economy and shrunk the government and welfare rolls and yet the country was so bitterly divided.

Now I am begining to see the truth, I see the armies of the ignorant, marching in lock step while our country, our constitution and our futures burn.

He can't pick Palin, like most of hte GOP in Alaska these days she is under investigation for firing a state trooper. If he picks a female it'd be probably be Hutchison who is pretty popular. Most of the right would like to see him choose Condy, but I don't think she wants the job.....and there are still rumors McCain is talking to Powell. Who the heck knows......

PAUL
tell me how obama does that? i'm being serious here. more rebate bribes?
more ads? careful to flood the airwaves. that didnt work nat all i ohio or PA.

town hall meetings? he doesnt like those off the cuff deals.
debates? nope.

bigger light blue signs with concept speak all over it? new presidential seals with an eagle defanged and no arrows in its mouth?

no can do. he's already delivered his earth shattering race speech, his earth shattering i am the world speech, his earth shattering econ speech, his earth shattering judgement speech, his earth shattering leadership speech, his earth shattering kick the tires speech, his earth shattering war policy speech, what's left?

CHANGE?

sounds like mccain is onto something with the spoofing and that is more lethal than any swift boat blitz. it is especially lethal for any man such as obama with zippo sense of humor about himself.

being the laughing stock is the worse insult of any thing. I mean, a harvard alum the butt of jokes?
yeee-up!!

@Stillow I think it's more likely Powell is going to endorse Obama! Romney is the GOP's establishment man, he may go for Hutchison if they let him but he'd rather go for Lieberman!

@thoughtful, during the primaries I beleive Powell said he supported McCain, maybe he'llchange his mind, but I doubt it. Maybe McCain will throw us all off and pick Hillary???? heh.

@Boskop I think that your man McCain is going to get to tied up with all his lobbyist friends in places like Ohio and Michigan for that matter.

@Stillow Powell sat on the fence. Said they both had admirable qualities. Many in the military regard McCain's temperament as suspect.

I think we can count Edwards out as a possible VP for Obama...it was just announced he lied about having an affair on his cancer stricken wife....wow, what a classy guy!

i think powell wants nothing more of war.
he was the last sane voice and freaked under pressure with his inane UN presnetation..something he will never live down for the rest of his life.

so powell doesnt want washington at all. i wouldnt either.

i think mccain should pick hillary!! now that would make jaws drop n'est-ce pas? why not, if obama is pretending to be bi partisan with hagel why not mccain who has more proff in the pudding already.

i say Mccain/Hillary!!!

when did pollster.com become redstate?

I think the site moderators should start banning all comments that have nothing to do with polls.

For example, start with this one:

"obama is not having a good day today and i'd hope he brings enough arugula and twinkies for his entire 200 in salaried staff.

but i do hope he gets rest cause he looks like hell and i love a good cock fight."

I just think you Republicans are jealous :) Missing the good old days of Karl Rove campaigns in 2000 and 2004? Not this time guys. Crocodile tears for everyone.

McCain has to pick Romney. He brings "real" votes in NV, CO, & MI (Every Mormons will get the vote out like AA for Obama). All three states are swing states right now. Plus he is a "Ross Perot" CEO type with "success" and "leadership" as qualifications that nobody else in the election has. He has a national presence and he's been vetted. Plus he has MONEY!! He can buy land in MI and OH and say he's building factories there..haha! And the Mormon thing won't hurt him because the evangelicals are going to turn out big time just to oppose Obama.

oh pu-lease mike. politics is comical too. lighten up.

neother you nor i can sway the vote. so peace brother.

All the polls point to a battle for the Mid-West and West. Obama/Sebelius with WJ Clinton doing the intros on Wednesday the 20th in Denver

McCain/Romney I agree with Marctx, it helps with those States and more however inedible that is!

I don't think Mitt Romney will help in Michigan. Only people 50+ know his father George Romney, who was two term governor. Moreover, knowing him does not mean that it is going to be positive.

We are witnessing an historic moment. If Obama wins (and the odds are still in his favor) this probably is be the end of white redneck domination of US presidential politics.
Even Clinton and Carter counted on the rednecks. They have dominated since 1968 when the South finally abandoned the Democrats and thus handed the election to Nixon. All of Obama's soaring (or egocentric depending on your affiliation) rhetoric is based on this. The "conservatives" are praying that they can swift-boat Obama and they have come very close but haven't succeeded yet. There is one bitter pill the rednecks have to swallow. Obama's sunny personality just doesn't fit with Republican attempts to define him. He is a nicer guy than McCain and they can't get around that fact. McCain's snide and sarcastic sense of humor paints him as a "mean old man" and that is a problem.

One more thing in Obama's favor- He doesn't look French!

sebelius looks like the one to me. i agree. he captures hillary grudge. but it could very well backfire since it isnt hillary at all.

so sebelius while on the surface looks fine could do more harm. half the dems didnt fight a hard battle for this relative unknown. and kansas? who needs that?

they wanted the fighter and that was hillary. the two dont stack up and playing the gender card is all too transparent.

we aren't that stupid. nevertheless, by all indications it looks to be the greater possibility because obama is definitely playing for the surprise pick and a huge media capture.

nothing will deflect away from mccain like a sebelius pick. he puts evan bayh and hagel and kaine in his black hat and he pulls out sebelius. Surprise!!

but obama's well orchestrated flourishes have the look and feel of chinese food. we gobble it up with a vengeance and then a moment later... time for something else. very quick half life.

so, i dunno. interesting though. i say mccain with hillary.

i wonder if she could bolt the party and the two of them could just play a funeral dirge for the two party system and we'd all be alot happier.

@Boskop Sebelius is favorite daughter in Ohio rather more recently than Romney favorite son in Michigan. This is a MidWest and West battle in the polls. Women and Ethnic Minorities are Obama's keys.

thanks for the heads up there.

but i dont believe that her 42 year absence make her much of a favorite daughter of ohio.
after all, she split and has little gravitas in ohio as far as i can see.

imagine that after all these years, women and minorities are key and need a lot of stroking and wooing! if you wait long enough....and i agree it's a midwest battle royal.

Old SurveyUSA poll "In Michigan, Putting Mitt Romney on the Ticket adds points to McCain;"

McCain / Romney 47%
Obama / Sebelius 31%

Who know what it would be now or on election day.

Sebelius = NO vote for Obama. DPW (Dead Person Walking). Snoozer State of Union response... way past BORING. Won't help Obama in Kansas (dark red) or Ohio. "Favorite daughter" PFFF! Her Daddy Gilligan served only one term as Ohio governor early 70s. Sebelius in Kansas since 1974. Ancient and less than memorable history for Ohioans.

Michigan voting Republican? Now that would be a surprise. The Dems have a superior get out the vote organization in that state. And I seriously doubt that a cult member like Romney will help McCain that much.

what happened to pollster.com, the statistical insight from posters used to be quite informative... hopefully we will have moderated forums soon

Redneck, cult member, what is with all the crazy talk? The left is supposed to be tollerant of all beleifs and all religions aren't they? So what's with the derogatory comments?
To the guy who said Obama is a sunnier person? Are you on something? His whole campaign is about what's wrong with America, it needs to be changed, etc, etc. That is not exactly sunny. Telling hte little girl at his town hall that America is no longer great, blah blah blah....that is the kinda nonsense that will end up hurting him with undecideds, not help him out.

Wow. I hope he picks Romney more now so Republicans can play the bigot card.

He probably won't pick Romney. So your safe, no bigot card this time around. Although if the Dems former savior Bill Clinton whined about having the race card played against him, it will be very likely they will use it on McCain as it gets closer. After all, all conservatives are racist, homophobics who want to kill old people and poison children....destory the Earth and annhiliate the future....yada yada yada, both sides need new playbooks....the same old stuff is just boring these days.

ki_moon : do you type in complete sentences? or are you reading from a list of McCain talking points and can't quite figure out how to form them all in a sentence? Just asking.

@illinoisindie: I asked the same question about 928739487982734 comments above, as well. Shame. The forums on here used to be exciting until redstate started to invade. Ironic that we Dems used to have rational discussions about polls before Stillow et al., eh? Now there is pretty much no discussion of polls at all. Just Republican talking points and hyperbole and sabre rattling. Ugh.

Yes Mike in CA, rational discussions only take place amongst enlightened Democrats. Having opposing opionion demeans the very nature of discussion. A true discussion of ideas only takes place when everyone else in the room agrees with you. Its disgustingly painful that differing opinions be brought forth. You should request they ban all conservative viewpoints on here so the site can go back to its rich and enlightened level of discussion. BAN all this right wing nonsense.....there is no room for disagreement, this is America, who needs all those differing opinions getting i nthe way of your left wing utopia!

Well said Stillow. Liberals want to tell us how to think because they think they are smarter than the rest of America. San Francisco values & Harvard elitists are taking over the country. Well sorry, I didn't see that light come from the sky and have an epiphany and know I must vote for Obama. Watch "The One" McCain ad. Speaks volumes.

Romney isn't being vetted is he? He says he wasn't asked for any personal info. The governor of Florida is probably number one on the list. We know that he is being vetted. Also, the laws for photo IDs when voting are a good thing. I don't know why anyone would be allowed to vote without first proving who they are. It doesn't make sense unless you want people voting who are hiding from the law because they are criminals. Let them pay for their crimes before they vote and if they are illegal then they shouldn't be voting anyhow.

"more comedic ads.. nothing deflates pomposity like comic parody."

So true, so true.

@player

The left always opposes any attempt to make people show proof of citizenship at the polling places. On the cover they say its discrimination....but the real reason is that illegal immigrants support the left overwhelmingly, and the Dems love to get those votes! Its just a game. In a normal world showing ID is common sense, but in the political world there are votes to be had.......and the Dems want the votes!

uh. stillow i hate to say it, but you proved my point. this site is about polls. you've offered no insight. at all.

sorry, those of who've been around have seen this thing denigrate into conservative bullsh*t.

oh, and marctx...maybe if we had listened to the opinions of the Harvard elite instead of the moran we have as President right now, we wouldn't have lost most of the power and prestige that we had in the world. Bush gave a speech yesterday about China? Did anyone care? A monkey in central Africa is more respected than the chimp we currently have.

Oh, and Stillow, the left is playing games by guaranteeing equal voting rights? I'm pretty sure the right played the game of denying African Americans the right to vote for quite some time. All the way to 1964 in fact. There are still voter suppression tactics being employed today. Oh, and maybe you should read "What's the Matter With Kansas?" and then come back and tell me that the right isn't playing with people's minds to get votes...Remind me again what Bush et al have done concerning re abortion, gay rights, etc. Nothing -- yet they promised the Christian right that they'd fight all those things. Gosh, could it be that they were just playing politics for votes?

Who plays the freaking games around here huh?

Mikey = police state: word police, syntax police, opinion police. Needs attitude fix.

Am I Mccain lover? NO. Am I Obama lover? NO. Is pollster about love? NO. Nuff said.

Hi Stillow- How the Hell are ya?
Yes I've heard the "down on America" argument before. In fact I've heard McCain say stuff about America like we've ignored the energy crisis for over twenty years. Wasn't that unpatriotic for him to say that? Maybe he's a commie or something. Just kidding! In a normal year I would agree with you but when the economy is in a dive like it is and people are saying it's going to get worse you don't score political points by saying the economy is ok. Remember, Phil Graham tried that line. People are scared and all the polling is saying that the US is on the wrong track and the people want change. You know all this don't you? You just like spinning.
In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 3%. 2008 is a much tougher environment than 2004. You can keep hoping for miracles but I'm glad I'm not in your situation.
ZOTZ

The latest edwards news doesn't bode well for mccain...

mccain's past affairs that he had while his wife was left disfigured in a car accident - after she waited for him all those years - is bound to come up.

mccain's history of being a womanizer and running to the richest bimbo he could find is going to be rehashed I'm sure. maybe the dems will use the fact that he is a cheating misogynist in ads soon.....oh wait never mind, only republicans do despicable things like that...........

stillow -

yes, people who believe in creationism and think evolution is "conspiracy" are, by definition, less intelligent or severely lacking iin eductaion. Sorry, but it is true. So if a large number of people who happen to be "conservative" believe as you believe, well, then, that would make you less intelligent.

You can cry all you want about this, but the most of the educated world knows this (since they believe in that wacky thing called SCIENCE), but a few handful of evangelicals and brain washed christianists. It is time neo-cons wake up. Their ignorance is dragging america's rep through the mud.....

Neo-Conservatives are slandering the true conservative ideals. Bogus foreign policy, free spending, idiotic religiosity. It is an embarassment that the neo-con republican party is associated with the USA. They aren't conservative - they are just an inane bunch of chimps.

This John Edwards affair has the potential to dominate the news cycle for the next few weeks. There is more to it than meets the eye so the press will be digging. It will probably grow bigger and bigger. Obama picked a good couple of weeks to go on vacation. Maybe Edwards and him planned this timing.

marctx asid:
"McCain has to pick Romney. He brings "real" votes in NV, CO, & MI . . . ."

Not sure if that is true or not. I presume your ' "real" votes' means Mormons.

Nevada has about 7-9% Mormon population. How many of them would not be voting for McCain in the first place?

Michigan? His father was governor from 1963 to 1969. Anyone who is less than 45 probably only heard of George Romney as Governor in the state history class. How long has it been since Willard Mitt Romney has lived in Michigan? He graduated from high school in 1965, then went to Stanford for two quarters (I believe Stanford is in California?). He was a Mormon missionary in France (FRANCE??) for 30 months, then went to Brigham Young University, where he graduated in 1971 (I believe BYU is located in Utah?). He then went to Harvard Grad School, getting a joint JD/MBA degree in 1975 (I believe Harvard is in Massachusetts?). After Harvard, he stayed in Boston to work. Even if his graduation from Harvard Grad School is considered when he left Michigan, he hasn't been lived in Michigan for 33 years now.

Plus the Mormon population of Michigan is less than .5% of the state's population.

Colorado is the biggest error you make. The number of Mormons in Colorado is about 131,000, or less than 3% of the population.

What does McCain lose by picking Romney?

The evangelical vote in many states, because many of the evangelicals think of the Latter Day Saints as a cult group.

There are a lot of evangelicals who would be considered McCain supporters in Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia who would rather sit out the election than give their vote to McCain with Romney on the ticket - 'can't vote for the cult member'. That works to Senator Obama's advantage.

There are a lot of evangelicals who would be considered McCain supporters in Michigan, Indiana and Missouri who would rather sit out the election than give their vote to McCain with Romney on the ticket - 'can't vote for the cult member'. That works to Senator Obama's advantage.

There are a lot of evangelicals who would be considered McCain supporters in Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia who would rather sit out the election than give their vote to McCain with Romney on the ticket - 'can't vote for the cult member'. That works to Senator Obama's advantage.

I am not saying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult. Evangelical Christians have been saying that for decades. Google 'evangelical Mormon cult' and there are 10s of thousands of sites that go into this debate, some trying to convince evangelicals that Mormons are NOT a cult, others stating that Mormons ARE a cult.

As a Democrat and a supporter of Senator Obama, I'd like to see McCain pick Romney as his running mate. It would make it a lot easier for Senator Obama to clear the neo-cons out of the Executive Branch of government.

getting back to the polls: its early days nearly 3 months to go, on the evidence to date that some States that are normally not in play, are actually in play. Dems looking at Iowa, Indiana, Colorado etc. The Repubs looking to steal Minn, Wi,Mi etc.

There is a very unpopular Repub president and very unpopular Dem Congress. The election in one respect is being run on the lines of "Change" vs "Experience".

The Repubs have in many respects with 72 year old McCain the best candidate they could have to keep in power. He has some deniability for whatever he wants to disassociate himself from and credit himself for whatever he wants to in the past 7 1/2 years of Bush.

The Dems have got Obama the young liberal African-American with a funny sounding Muslim name.

Considering McCain can paint himself a maverick and independent from Bush, it is highly surprisng that Obama still has a lead particularly after taking into account the blitz of negative videos over the past 2 weeks undermining Obama.

The polls are actually showing one thing: a significant amount of core voters have decided, and stating the obvious with nearly 3 months to go, a great number of undecideds naturally remain and there is still quite a lot of churn in the decided/leaning columns as well (from leaning to undecided)

This is giving great comfort to my friends like Stillow, Boskop and ki_moo_enim on the red channel for their candidate still to b so close. If I was making book I'd make McCain 7/4 against and Obama 4/9 on winning with the evidence of the polls. Rasmusson gives it 60% probable Obama. But considering the so called generics Dems vs Repubs, most commentators think Obama should have a much larger lead even after factoring in 3rd and 4th party candidates and that this is the National poll!

Bad news guys an Obama landslide is more likely than a narrow McCain win on these numbers!

Normally, running mate picks add very little either way to a candidates chance of winning or losing. You have to go all the way back to LBJ winning the election for JFK, after discounting Mayor Daley! Dan Quayle didn't prevent Bush 1 from winning.

I am one who believes that this is an election when running mates do matter. There is no doubt than the inhouse polling and focus groups have just as much import as the vetting - more!

The polls show that the keys for Obama are the 18-29 demographic; Women; Ethnic Minorities. Holding his own with white males. For McCain its inverse: 50 + demographic, white males.

Attitudes: these are uncertain times McCain represents stability - you know what you are going to get (I disagree with this fit)and Obama is a risk (he's not ready). On the other hand McCain is Washington and represents more of the same and Obama is not Washington and is young enough, smart enough and unifying enough to bring change for the better.

Any way coming up to the conventions these are some thoughts

Six years ago, Barack Obama strongly urged the United States to do the following:

1. Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesnt simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

and

2. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.

A week later, our experienced Senators and Representatives in Congress voted overwhelmingly to allow George W. Bush to invade Iraq if he wanted to, but many say they didnt know he wanted to. Dumb and dumber.

The 42-year-old Obama had it right back then.
He has it right now.

'Quite obvious' don't even know what first Mrs. McCain looks like. She ain't disfigured. She is shorter and put on a few pounds.

Mrs. McCain #1 is friends with ex-hubby. McCain was her Husband #2. McCain adopted her 2 boys. Cindy made boys part of her corp. McCain & Cindy married almost 3 decades. Everybody gets along as one BIG family (7 kids).

Kathleen san juan;
I was against going to war in iraq also. So were a lot of other people. However, the Obama we know now probably wouldn't have felt that way had he of been in the Senate where the action was. We now know that he changes his mind quite frequently. We also know that he will say one thing and then vote another way or not vote at all and then say that he did(the veterans vote and the wire tap authorization). The one thing that I detest about Obama is how he put the thought into the public conscious that he actually voted no on the Iraq war resolution when in fact he wasn't even involved. If you ask the young voters about it, they will tell you that Obama voted against the war. He lets this lie live intentionally. Oh and by the way, he likes the idea of high price gas at the pumps because it makes people use less gas. The one thing that he doesn't get is that not everyone is rich like him. Most people work for a living.

@quiteobvious

Why does the left just make stuff up? I never said I beleive in creationism, I beelive in "Intelligent Design" If you cannot distringuish the difference, there are some good grade school level blogs out there for you!

@Mike_in_CA
Yes its all conservative BS, I told you to request a ban on all opposing viewpoints, its the American way. Polls are not simple numbers, there are reasons for #'s being reported as they are, this site discusses those easons. But yes, lets ban the evil conservative opinions, you don't want us getting i nthe way of your highly educated and enlgihtened discussions...

Stillow:

As I see it, one of only two differences between 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' is that in the former, the 'creator' is explicitly identified, and in the latter, the 'creator' is not explicitly identified.

'Intelligent design' was developed by certain United States 'creationists' who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of 'creationism' as science.

The primary proponents of 'intelligent design', all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

There MIGHT be one other difference. Advocates of 'creationism' don't believe in the scientific method. Advocates of 'intelligent design' argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. Science doesn't work that way. When the only current explanation is "We don't know, the only explanation must be supernatural," the scientific method says investigate further to find a non-supernatural explanation. And so far, non-supernatural explanations have been found to explain what for centuries could only been explained as caused by the supernatural.

So, other than
1. 'Creationism' explicitly designating the God of Christianity as the 'creator' (or designer), and 'intelligent design' implicitly designating the God of Christianity as the designer (creator); and

2. 'Creationists' totally ignoring the scientific method, while proponents of 'intelligent design' say "If you change the definition of science, it'll work", what is the difference between the two?

There is none. Therefore, if you support one, you implicitly or explicitly support the other. Neither is scientific, as neither can be proven by the methods used by science to prove or disprove something.

Mike

Barack Obama was running for re-election in October, 2002, when he gave a public speech in the state of Illinois, speaking out strongly against invading Iraq. I quoted from that speech, above, and also quoted his words urging the US, six years ago, to wean ourselves off Middle East oil.

Neither of these positions were popular in October, 2002. 85% of the country, most of the Democrats in Congress, most of the voters in Illinois, were cheering Dick and George's war.

At the time, the administration said anyone who did not support the lies they were selling was
"helping the terrorists".

Ironically, it was Dick and George and Donald who let bin Laden, who attacked the city, the country that I love, escape in Dec 2002. What would have happened to their plans to invade Iraq if they had captured or killed bin Laden at Tora Bora?

@Mike In Maryland

The problem is most o nthe left try to paint conservatives as believing the world is 6,000 years old, etc etc, whiel there are kooks on both sides, your average conservative doesn't think that. I view Intelligent Design as beeliving the universe and life is not random, it was no accident that just ahppened to take place as some scientists beleive. The universe and indeed life has a design to it that I feel was intentional. The theories range from God as defined by religion here on Earth to an advanced alien species who bio-engineered the human race. But to me...and some on the left call me nuts for it, there isdefiantely an intelligence behind the creation of everthing aound us. Just as some crazy creationism people think the world is 6000 years old, there are crazy evolutionists who think everything was random....and the Universe just one day created itself for no reason and everything just kind of fell into place, to me that is insne. There is a much higher power at work...and for some scientists to lcaim there isn't is irresponsible since as you mentioned, we simply do not know. Today its used a poltical tool by this other guy who throws out creationism as some tool to make others look foolish. I firmly beleive there was intelligence behind creation.

@kathleen san juan:
Careful with pulling out things like that. Perhaps if Clinton had persued terrorists are much as W does, the WTC would still be standing today. We had multiple opportunities to nab bin Laden in the 90's and we failed. All of the 9/11 attack plans took palce in the 90's...I assure you it didn't jus thappen between Febuary and Sept. of 2001. This is not political, terrorism is a real enemy to this country. No matter which party contols the White House, they beter take this threat seriously. Its not just some thugs out there with spitballs, this is a real enemy with lots of money and if we do not play offense and defense to win, we will look at another maor terrorist attack. If millions of uneduacted migrant workers can cross our southern border with no problem, I assure you highly trained Islamic terorists carrying everything from Small POX to suitcase nukes can cross anytime they want to.
The war in Iraq is totally debatable....and I have "no" doubt W used what intelligence they had and as all politicans do bent it to support what he wanted to do. All major world leaders thought Saddam had WMD including both Clintons. The premise of taking out a rogue nation iwht WMD before they take you out is valid under the right circumstances. Do we want Iran to get nukes, th nuts over there already said they want to wipe Israel off the planet....so if everything points to them getting nukes, what do we do about it? Invade? Nothing? Sanctions? What is the answer? When you have insane people in charge of nuclear weapons combined with public statements of wanting to wipe other countries off the map, does that justify invasion of that country? Play defense by playing offense? I do not envy the peope having to make those decisions, either way people will die. If we do nothing and Iran sets a nuke of in Israel, do we act then? Do we still do nothing? These are tough decisions pesidents make, looking back at thing sis easy....and its easy for people like us who sit in the safety of our homes and blog, but what does President Obama or McCain do about Iran?

@Kathleen san juan:
Yes re-election to what office, the state senate? He wasn't in the federal energy of things. His speech was meaningless at the national level. Had he of been in the U.S. Senate and had actually of had a vote then I would give him the benefit of the doubt. No one knew Barack Obama until the democrats let him speak at the 2004 democrat convention. Oh by the way, what were Obama's real reasons for being against the Iraq invasion?

Stillow:

"as some scientists beleive" ????

Make that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in evolution and a universe that was NOT formed by a supernatural being.

"a design to it that I feel was intentional"

Intentional for what? And as to your 'feeling' something has to be because you 'feel' it has to be, unless you can prove something, it has no place in science.

"There is a much higher power at work"

"for some scientists to lcaim [sic]"

Science does not try to explain things as caused by a 'supernatural being' or other such ilk. Science tries to find the underlying reason for the universe to be as it is. In other words - what are the laws and rules of the universe, what we know as physics. If something cannot be proven, using scientific methods of proof that can be duplicated multiple times by others, it is not science.

We know gravity exists, but we don't understand what causes gravity. Science could EASILY just say "gravity is magic caused by a supernatural being" and leave it at that. That is not how science works.

"I firmly beleive [sic] there was intelligence behind creation."

If you want to prove it is science, then use the scientific method to prove it. Just because you believe it does not make it so.

Just as when the Roman Catholic Church believed the Earth was the center of the universe did NOT make it so. It took the Church almost 200 years to recognize the validity of Copernicus' work, and 350 years to (posthumously) apologize to Galileo.

Just as when everyone thought the Sun was a 'fire' in the sky, with the combustible being wood or coal or some other material did NOT make it so. Science eventually discovered the why and the how of the Sun being able to produce heat and light, and to do so for billions of years. It's called nuclear fusion.

Just as most thought that disease was caused by 'vapors' or 'bad spirit' or some other magical reason did NOT make it so. It took observation of the microscopic life forms, and an understanding of how chemicals work, to start to understand what causes diseases, start to understand how to prevent them, and start to understand how to cure them.

Some believed that comets were portends of ill fortune, and that they appeared to warn people of that ill fortune approaching. We have now determined that comets are a natural part of the universe, and that they are not warnings of good or bad fortune in our future, unless a very large one is on a direct collision course with the Earth.

Eclipses? Most used to think that they were caused by some 'evil spirit' eating the Sun or moon, and only special dances, potions offered to the gods, chants, etc., caused the 'evil spirit' to 'spit back out' the whole Sun or moon. We now know that is NOT the cause of an eclipse.

Science does not look for the 'why' of life on Earth, but rather to the 'how'. And as science explores further and further, we find more and more evidence of the how for life forming on Earth.

The 'why' is religion, not science. If you want to force your religion into science, then it would be OK for science to be taught in your place of worship, wouldn't it? If you don't want science in your religion, then please keep YOUR religion out of science.

Mike

Player said...
"Oh by the way, what were Obama's real reasons for being against the Iraq invasion?"

Maybe he thought, just like many Americans, that the war on terror should be fought where the terrorists actually were at that time, in Afghanistan.

Maybe he thought, just like many Americans, that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, and by the way, who many WMDs were actually found in Iraq? I believe the White House has even admitted that the total was zero? Or maybe you didn't hear that, especially if you get all your news from the admitted propaganda arm of the Bush administration, Faux News.

Another by the way - stop insinuating that Senator Obama is a Muslim. The 'real reasons' comment you made is an insinuation that Senator Obama is not a non-Muslim. Only idiots and propagandists keep spreading that BS.

Mike

@Mike In Maryland

Are you aware your tryign to debate a topic that has no possible resolution? Neither of us are qualified, neither science or religion offer the answers....Human science is beyond arogent if it wishes to declare the meang of the Universe, how it was formed, etc, etc. If you wish to beleive there was no intelligent design behind all of creation, then I am happy for you. I happen to beleive there is notonly a intelligent design, but a purpose humanity does not yet understand. Everything from instinct to your soul, science nor religion can fully answer. At this point in our evolution it is pure theory.....religion is mostly fixed, science can change. Centuries ago scientists beleived the world was flat, a spice tader from Spain disocvered it was not flat. Don't rule out common sense and logical deduction in the name of "science"....because the truth it, none of us know.....and as we can see by the petty issues we as people ague about, we are clearly not ready to know.

On a muchmore practcal issue, terrorists do not just exist in Afghanistan.....they exist everywhere, including within this country. As I mentioned the Iraq war is certainly debatable, but don't think terrorists were not at work there either. Saddam did have WMD as he poisoned countless innocent Iraqi's over the years....Was he persuing nukes, weaponized anthrax, I do not know. I do know that it wasn't just Bush who beleived they did. Its easy to blame the guy who pulled hte trigger, but what about the guy who handed you the gun? Nowe have Iran, as a cleary leftist, what do you suggest we do about them? Just be nice and hope they are nice back? At which point does force become justified? Obama said hte other day in a speech he would never use nuclear weapons.....that is a boneheaded statement. Iran is a real problem, what do we do about it? The left wants sanctions, well ok, is that it? If they get a nuke and point it at Israel do we still do nothing? There has to be a point where force is required, do we wait until a nuclear detonation before we act? Or is it wise to take first action? I do not have the answers.....in addition our leaders we elect have access to information that we do not, we are going off what we see on CNN and public information coming out of the g'ment.

@Mike in Maryland:
Your logic is being defined in terms of intellectual hypotheticals rather than basic facts in plain speak. I don't know your age but if you can recall the time that Iraq went to war with Iran. This was shortly after Reagan took office. The war lasted 8 years. Iraq killed millions of Iranians. Iraq used WMD's on the Iranians in that war. After that war, Iraq invade Kuwait. Thats when George Bush assembled a world army together and put Saddam in his place. When we left, Saddam had tens of thousands of his own people killed. It was only a matter of time before Saddam would try something else like invasion of Saudi Arabia or something.Everyone knew that. Saddam was evil incarnate. Regardless, if Iraq had WMDs or not, doing what we are doing now is well worth the price for world stability. We need to lead in this world or it could get really bad. Everything that Obama says indicates that he doesn't want the U.S. to lead.

Stillow said...
"Human science is beyond arogent if it wishes to declare the meang of the Universe, how it was formed, etc, etc."

And apparently Stillow can't read, as I specifically stated "Science does not look for the 'why' of life on Earth, but rather to the 'how'."

The 'why' is, as Stillow phrased it, 'the meang [sic] of the Universe'.

Actually, science could give a shiv about the meaning of the universe. Science just wants to know how the universe works.

If Stillow's reading comprehension and analysis of what I stated is so low, what does that tell anyone about his comprehension and analysis of polls? I think a lot. And then extend that to diplomacy, politics, and an understanding of world relations....

Mike

@Mike In Maryland

Right. You go and follow science blindly and continue thinking the world is flat....you liberals don't wish to teach both sides. Liberals, who claim to the side of inclusiveness, tollerance, acceptance, blah blah, only if everyone walks in lock step with that ideaology. You got Mike in CA who want sto ban conservative opinion, you got Mike in Maryland who sees things thru a straw and thinks the other side is uneducated. I know by default a liberal is infinately smarter than a Conservative so bare with us slow folks on the right as we struggle to grasp your highly enlightened state of being. I was mistaken to think you didn't have all the answers, God forbig another theory be brought forth that is plausible.....but if it doesn't fall in line behind the leftists view of the world, its all nonsense. So remember Mike, as you strive for perfect your intelectual supremecy over the rest of us...the world is flat because science was said it was so. Don't question it, don't insert your own thought, just follow what you've read in some book and have been told by some scientist, never question in, to do so would not be American.
I, as a lowly conservative will do my best to defeat my foolish ways, not question the ideaology of the left, for it is superior in every way. Yes the Universe is a random event that came about from the big bang of a small condensed ball of matter....and the question of where did this ball of matter come from will remain forever irrelevant in the minds of liberals and science.

Stillow,

If a hypothesis is plausible, then you should be able to prove it. Once it is proven, then it can be thought of as a scientific theory.

You see, Stillow, you don't understand what science calls a theory, and what society calls a theory. What society calls a theory is what science calls a hypothesis.

In science, after a hypothesis is postulated, then it needs to be proven by experimentation. After it is proven by experimentation, then others have to be able to duplicate the experimentation and come up with the same results. If that happens, then everything is reviewed by peers to see if any cheating went on, the samples were tainted (purposefully or not), mistakes were made (purposefully or not), etc.

Only then does science call a hypothesis a theory.

People who support 'creationism' and/or 'intelligent design' don't want to go through the process of proving their (so-called) 'theories' (because they can't follow scientific principles to do the experiments), and/or want to change the way science operates in order to claim their hypotheses are theories (which science will not do). They think if they keep calling their hypothesis a theory, and everyone will accept it.

After all, many non-scientists think that a scientific theory is 'a guess'. They think if science calls something a theory, then all scientific theories are guesses. And they think that anything called a 'theory' is a guess.

The are WRONG.

How about some truth in labeling with the creationists/intelligent design peddlers? Label it a hypothesis, then take the steps to prove your guess.

BTW - Those who are creationists are the most likely to think of the world as flat ('four corners of the earth' ring a bell? Isaiah 11:12; Acts 10:11; Revelations 7:1?), because they believe the 'word of god' is the unadulterated truth. How can a world with four corners be round? When described as 'four corners', it makes the world sound flat, doesn't it? So who is the flat-earth thinker here? Since you are the one who brought it up, sounds like you are the one who thinks that way.

@Mike In Maryland

If you are walking thru a forest and come to a clearing....and in that clearing was a cabin. Would you assume that cabin was built by someone or something possessing intelligence....or would you assume it was just there?
Many would argue the just us being here is proof of intelligent design...the answer is both pure evolution and intelligent design shoudl be taught, both are theories, the big bang "theory" is just that, a theory. We do not possess the intelligence or mental capacity to prove anything at this point...all we can do is to is investigate every possible path, teach all the prevailing theories as plausible. To teach only one side does us a great disservice. I think the cabin analogy is a good one above....I think most would assume it was built by a intelligent being. So just as a fly might try to figure out computer science....so are we trying to figure out what the heck life is, where did it come from...and what's the point.

Only a great fool would claim to have the answers, but only a great fool would deny all the posibilitites. Our kids deserve to be taught all the plausible theories, which include intelligent design and evolution.

By the way I didn't bring it up, the other guy way up the page did in an attempt to say anyone who beleives in in telligent design is a moron............of course to logical people he himself is the moron...because denying all possibilitites to an equasion for which we have no answer yet is obsurd.

Stillow,

What part of quiteobvious's posts did I respond to? Only the parts that YOU responded to, and only in response to YOUR responses and messages. My quotes were DIRECTLY from your posts, and no one else's. If you quoted someone else, then I only quoted what you had already quoted.

One more time - what society and non-scientists call a theory is called a hypothesis in science. When a hypothesis has been tested by experimentation that confirms (or appears to confirm the hypothesis), that experimentation has been confirmed by others successfully replicating the results of the experiment, when peers have reviewed the data and the means of conducting the experiments, then it can be called a theory.

Science:
Hypothesis -> experiment to confirm -> confirming experiments by others -> review by peers -> theory.

Creationists/intelligent design proponents:
Theory

But they want to call their hypothesis scientific, without explaining how to try to prove it in experiments, let alone actually do any type of experimentation.

No contest as to whose ideas fail the scientific method.

Mike

Then answer my question professor, if you come across a clearing while walking thru a forest and see a cabin, was it built by someone intelligent, or did it simply evolve to be? Again, I know as a liberal you are smarter than everyone else, so what is the answer? If you say it evolved, what are the mathematical odds that the wood and metals molded just right to create a cabin? If you say it was built, prove it, if the builder is no where to be found and he left none of his tools behind. Can you still prove it? Or is the fact you say it was built simply based on "faith"?
Face it, neither of us are qualified to discuss this, especially me being a conservative. I know as a liberal you know everything about everything...and all opinions and viewpoints just get in the way, but again, was the cabin built or did it evolve?
Thus the battle between how the left and right view the world continues....

Silly, silly Stillow,

The prior question was for YOU to provide some evidence that a scientific experiment has ever been tried to prove creationism or intelligent design.

Remember, that means:
Hypothesis -> experiment to confirm -> confirming experiments by others -> review by peers -> theory. No jumping from hypothesis to calling it a theory. ALL the steps.

I'm not saying that you would have had to conduct the experiment, but can you offer any proof that ANYONE has tried to conduct such an experiment?

The ball is in your court Stillow. And it remains there until you provide some evidence.

Mike

I don't blame you for not answering the question.
The "expireament" you are looking for its the qeustion itself. Who built hte cabin? Was it natural evolution or was it man? Either way, prove it. I blieve even though you won't answer it, you would say man built it, even though none of the tools were left behind and the man who built it was gone. So if you take it a step further and you're traveling thru the Universe and come across a planet that's just the right distance fro mthe sun, has just the right atmosphere, just the right conditions to sustain life, just the right enviroment, etc, etc.....did it evolve naturally or was it built / designed that way.
The proof good sir you are looking for is the fact you are here debatign this topic with me. Don't assume because human science has no explanation of where your soul comes from, what gives you self awareness, yet I assume I you won't debate the fact that those two things exist?
The problem here is that you on the left claim to be the party of inclusiveness, the big tent party, the party of tolerance, the party of progress, the party of choice, yet you wish to teach only one side of things.....you are grasping at straws here with this "show me an expirament" stuff, because the argument to teach only one side is a weak and undefendable argument to have.