Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Daily Tracking (9/11-13)


National Daily Tracking Surveys
9/11-13/08

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
1,100 LV, 3%; Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 47, McCain 45 (9/13 only)

Diageo / Hotline
904 RV, 3.2%; Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 45, McCain 43

Gallup
2,787 RV, 2%; Live Telephone Interviews
McCain 47, Obama 45

Rasmussen
3,000 LV, 2%; IVR
McCain 50, Obama 47

 

Comments
Tybo:

hmmm, KOS.
wouldn't that be like the National Review doing their own polling?

Do the OBamaites mock it?

just wondering.

,,,
at any rate, it appears McCain has more than a bounce..

What next /?

____________________

Jacob S:

As usual, I am not paying much attention to the national polls. I have crunched some numbers and have a few observations to make. Feel free to refer to both my website (people.carleton.edu/~schakj) and my brother's website (race-to-270.com).

1. Despite my estimation of Obama leading the popular vote (I have still not figured out how to properly derive the popular vote from state polling), I would say that McCain has a 2-3 point lead in the popular vote.

2. Unfortunately for McCain, he is behind in the Electoral College. This situation is primarily due to Obama's slight edge in CO. If Obama wins CO, he only needs to win the blue/purple states (IA, NH, and NM are purple) to win the election.

3. Most of the movement towards McCain has occurred in red states, especially dark red. At the beginning of the summer, McCain had safe leads in only three red states (AL, NE, and UT). Now, McCain has safe leads in at least seven states.

4. Despite the great consolidation of McCain support in the red states, he only has solid leads in 18/29 red states. Obama has solid leads in 14/18 blue states. Moreover, 4/5 of the toss-ups are red states. This situation gives Obama a strategic advantage over McCain.

5. I agree with my brother that there is a significant probability that McCain will win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral College. In fact, I cannot help but remember the primary in which most people were excited about the popular vote, but Obama was always ahead in what actually mattered--the delegate count. Obama will likely be manhandled (60 percent or more for McCain) in 10-15 of the red states. However, the Electoral College is designed precisely for these sorts of circumstances, because it acts to minimize the impact of any one region or demographic group (e.g. under-educated Caucasians).

6. I maintain that Obama is at least even with McCain in terms of the Electoral College. I also maintain that, if McCain does not take the lead in Electoral College within the next week, I will predict an Obama victory, barring any catastrophic blunder by Obama.

6.1 The debates do NOT matter, unless one candidate makes a major mistake. Just look at the past two presidential elections and you will realize that I am correct.

____________________

zotz:

What is Gallup's demographic breakdown by party affiliation? Or does an RV poll filter at all by party affiliation?

____________________

change:

the debates will decide this one. i don't know how mccain is possibly gonna handle obama in the debate, remember obama is not gonna show any mercy we all know he's steaming right now! will this 2 point lead last? anyone?

____________________

JFactor:

You have an error there. If DailyKos's poll is 9/13 only then the MoE is 5%.

Not much to comment on. These are all fluctuations inside the MoE. Rasmussen keeps McCain in a slight and steady lead but it's sure to come down if what people have said about 9/11 and McCain's numbers then is true.

____________________

boomshak:

DailyKos and Hotline are a joke. Their samples are insane. Fail.

Hotline is oversampling Democrats by 9 and undersampling Independents by 7.

Joke.

____________________

Justin:

Change from Yesterday:

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
Skipping today do to change to single day poll

Diageo / Hotline
McCain -2, Obama +1

Gallup
No Change

Rasmussen
McCain +1, Obama +1

____________________

boskop:

@"obama is not gonna show any mercy we all know he's steaming right now!"


from your lips to god's ears!!!

____________________

player:

I just watched Scott Rasmussen explain this poll on Fox. He said that McCain's ability to continue to lead this far out from the convention isn't what most pollsters expected. Furthermore, he said that voters under 30 are losing their enthusiasm for voting since Palin was chosen. However, she has energized the working class voters in both sexes.

____________________

change:

think about where the bounces have come from: conventions where the nominee has the nations attention for a while. okay now think about the debates; a moment to contrast clearly contrast the positions between mccain and obama. obama will slash and burn mccain on all the issues, not because he so good, but the landscape clearly favors him- opposition to the iraq war, taxes, economy, mccain-bush connection!

P.s are you guys surprised by the fluctuation in the polls favouring obama when RV is used instead of LV particularly NM and NEVADA- which one do u think matters most?

____________________

illinoisindie:

@Jacob S
Great post. I agree that the Pres. debates will change nothing unless... Obama says something insane or McCain loses his temper. I am not so sure about the VP debates though, this is actually new and different, I would reference Ferraro but that was culturally different and this debate will be viewed through a different lens. What are your thoughts on the VP debate

____________________

boomshak:

People, LOOK AT THE SAMPLES USED IN THE DAILYKOS AND HOTLINE POLLS.

They are REDICULOUS.

Hotline:
Democrats: 43%
Republicans: 34%
Independents: 20%

DailyKos:
Democrats: 35%
Republicans: 26%
Independents: 30%

No serious pollster can look at that and not laugh.

____________________

serpounce:

While I don't agree with Boomshak that Research 2000 and Hotline are a "joke," more weight should probably be given to Gallup and Rasmussen.

Boomshak, while you're comments and analysis are usually interesting and intelligent, your rhetoric is just as consistently inane and irrelevant. You're doing yourself a disservice by including the school yard bully talking points with your comments.

____________________

JFactor:

Yeah I agree. Boomshak has clearly some intelligence but the constant effort to provocate and mock others is really a turn-off. I'm sure you've had to deal with many annoying liberals but please try to include little less "school yard talking points" as serpounce so aptly put it.

____________________

PooNani:

Boomshak:

It's been estimated that there are between 6-10% more registered democrats than republicans in the united states. shouldnt this be reflected in the polls?

____________________

Snowspinner:

There is an error of note - as far as I can tell, the 47/45 numbers for the Daily Kos poll is the rolling average - the one day showed a three point lead.

I continue to just not have a problem with the Daily Kos party breakdown. Without knowing how that question is phrased, there's just no reason why the numbers wouldn't show that kind of lean. Phrasing the question based on affiliation, registration, or lean would produce dramatically different results. Without the specific question phrasings, this just isn't an issue.

In any case, the Gallup poll, where McCain's biggest bounce was seen, has moved towards a tie. Rasmussen showed a McCain bounce on the 9/11 numbers, but hasn't moved since then, suggesting that 9/12-13 were similar to 9/9-10. I'd expect to see this go back to a tie tomorrow.

I would expect to see no more than one survey showing a McCain lead tomorrow, and would not be surprised to see Gallup finish regressing to a dead heat tomorrow (though I think 1 point McCain is more likely).

The bounce, in other words, looks all but gone.

____________________

boomshak:

Lol, schoolyard bully tactics?

Sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? Serpounce, you say that "my rhetoric is just as consistently inane and irrelevant" and I am the one using schoolyard bully talking points?

Can you sight a single instance when I ever said you were "inane and irrelevant"? No, you can't, but you insult me then say I am the bully.

lol, liberals are just a laugh-riot of contradictions.

____________________

boomshak:

PooNani,

Geesh, do you do any current research? It is no longer 6 to 10. It is now 3 to 5. Pay attention.

____________________

I believe that these polls, other than Rasmussen, do not try to weight by party ID, they just do a random sample and respondent's party is one of the questions.

Therefore, when a sample shows a surprising party breakdown, this could indicate inaccuracy, or it could show movement towards the party that is polling unexpected support, or it could show some of each (movement toward that party but to a smaller degree than indicated by the results).

____________________

thoughtful:

For polling data released during the week of September 14-20, 2008, the targets are 38.7% Democratic, 33.6% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated. For the previous week, the targets were 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated.

LFL Rassmussen due to latest ID weighting changes is now 3.2% more favorable to McCain/Palin than before September 1st.

____________________

player:

@thoughtful:
Yes Rasmussen says that's because that more people are now identifying themselves as Republicans. I would imagine that its the shy tory effect.

____________________

zotz:

I wish I new what Gallup's party ID breakdown was. They would be different because they are an RV poll.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Player

It's then known as double counting.

If Obama loses 1 and McCain gains 1 that equals 2!

We have expression "creative accounting" in the old days they called it "cooking the books"!

But it doesn't change the fact that McCain on Ras is 3.2% + more than how Rasmussen was accounting prior to September 1st and this distorts the trend line.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Tied (again).

Right-leaning Rasmussen's decision today to decrease the party ID edge for Democrats to just 5% may have the effect of making it appear as if McCain's bounce is lasting even if his raw-number advantage is declining. McCain may well poll worse over the next three days than he has over the past three days, yet maintain a lead of about 3 points due to Rasmussen's new weighting.

This move, combined with his slew of recent polls of deep red states (OK, SD, ID, and WY) have the effect of creating a narrative that is potentially helpful to the GOP. The more momentum for McCain shown by polls, the more enthusiastic Republicans become, which helps with both their fundraising and GOTV efforts. Also, independents (who have no party loyalty and are therefore more malleable) may be influenced by a bandwagon effect.

Rasmussen is a conservative evangelical whose temptation is to over-sample Republicans. In 2000 he did just that, projecting a 9-point victory for Bush.

I should add that Zogby is just as questionable. His slew of internet polls yesterday showed McCain gaining almost everywhere over his previous batch of internet polls. Yet Zogby changed his methodology in-between, excluding Bob Barr's name in his more recent polls. Previously, Barr had polled quite well in the Zogby polls. Without his name mentioned, his support went largely to McCain.

Why did Zogby make this change? Well, one possibility is that he wants a closer race (which he got) so that more people will buy his polling package.

In fact, both Rasmussen and Zogby stand to make more money if polls show a close race. More people will then buy their packages and commission their polls.

____________________

change:

guys the party ID weight is correct,for the following reasons:

first, democratic voter registration is up by millions, while republican voter registration has declined. why did mccain pick palin when the race was polling dead even because he knows about the voter registration!

second, just look at the congressional seats being won by Democrats in places un-imaginable before.

Also take into account that when New mexico and Nevada polls are conducted using a RV sample the results shift substantially to favor obama.

____________________

tjampel:

Weighting Ras and Gallup at 30% each and the other polls at 20% each we get McCain at +.7
Seems about right. Look for that to move to even over the next few days.

And...on to the debates in what looks like a slightly better landscape for McCain. He's threatening in a few Kerry states and is competitive in all Bush battleground states except Iowa. Fact is though, that there are many ways for Obama to win and few paths to victory for McCain which don't involve winning in multiple close contests. I'd rather be Obama assuming the contest returns to dead even in the popular vote.

Regarding the debates, if McCain blows away "empty suit" Obama, as the hard right here predict there are enough close battleground states to give him the election. They'll shift towards him (states like CO) My guess is that "empty suit" beats "change in name only", resulting in a 2-3 point shift for Obama by late October.

Something to look at:

Favorable/Unfavorable (from research 2000)
DATE CANDIDATE
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
09/14 MCCAIN 53 44 3
09/14 OBAMA 54 39 7
09/14 BIDEN 49 33 18
09/14 PALIN 47 42 11
Looks like Palin may soon become a net drag on the campaign. The 11% with no opinion are unlikely to have a very favorable opinion later as the narrative of unpreparedness to be President coupled with extreme views on social issues develops. America is a moderate to mildly conservative country. Extreme conservatives all DO have opinions on Palin. I'd love to see the correlation between "no opinion" and political ideology here. My guess is that it's primarily conservative dems, indie moderates and economic conservatives. These people may support McCain but aren't so happy about the prospects of Palin actually taking over the helm of this country.

As McCain's age begins to weigh on people's mind more and more thoughts will turn to the person with a 30% chance of replacing him in the first term. I expect to see her with a net negative sometime after the VP debate. She will be poised in the debate but won't come across as ready to step up to the plate for our country if need be. That's really ALL we care about in our VP, face it.

____________________

player:

@thoughtful:
I understand what you are saying.However, I would think that this would give more credibility to the likely voter model.

____________________

boskop:

@general thoughtful and your troops!!!

this is just some personal trivia to throw into the mix that shows what the sweat meter is reading over at camp obama.

okay, i'll fess up. i have one foot deep into the world of art. (no, the other is not in my mouth but somewhere completely else)

today, i received emails from colleagues, one in the film industry the other in fine arts.

it was a call to combat to attack palin: here's a sampling FYI:

//Friends, compatriots, fellow-lamenters:

We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce -- on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate --that has a real possibility of becoming fact.

Like us, as American women, you probably share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. //

they asked me to write a letter to saynopalin@gmail.com

aside from their list of indiscretions by said candidate which are woefully misleading..i resented the elitist, YES elitist presumption that I by virtue of my profession MUST therefore be in the tank for obama.

This kind of bullheadedness and dogmatism is what is also contributing to team Obama's
restless sleep. the nerve of them.

what i object to is the stereotyping. and they should know better.

if //thoughtful// himself can declare that he too is frightened of the war eagerness of obama in pakistan and Afghanistan then we better start concentrating more on the top of the ticket again.

obama vs mccain.

so i ask you which do you think based on recent questions and answers is the one who might have the twitchiest trigger finger?

____________________

player:

We are seeing so much misinformation put out by legitimate news sources. They seem to be in such a haste to get it out into the mainstream that they don't research or analyze their facts before hand. Today they couldn't seem to explain why Barack Obama had gotten so much more money in august with the addition of 1/2 million more small donors. Of course, it is easy to explain. For some reason, I was on HRC campaign donor list. She got my name and e-mail from the Clinton center. It was only during august that I began receiving solicitations from the Obama campaign. The logical deduction is that HRC gave her donors list to BO. Some of HRC donors gave to Obama.

____________________

irishanalyst:

What everybody is ignoring is the fact that AA turnout will be huge. I think this makes this year's polling particularly suspect.

____________________

thoughtful:

tjampel

Good post

Player

All part of about creating the illusion of Big Mo. Lets see some States polls next week with some decent crosstabs.

The Right is obviously fighting with every thing is got to hold on to power. So i just see it getting even rougher, more distractions etc.

When it comes down to it. January 21st and John McCain dies, President Palin?

____________________

zotz:

"so i ask you which do you think based on recent questions and answers is the one who might have the twitchiest trigger finger?"

I ask you which one shoots wolves from airplanes and thinks the Iraq war is approved by God?

____________________

player:

Because AA = 12% of the population. Most vote in states that Obama will win anyway.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Here are some polls not yet posted here:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/NEWS09/80913038&theme=IOWA_POLL

http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/Obama_holds_lead_in_NJ.html

These polls show Obama holding healthy leads in IA and NJ, respectively. If Obama holds the Kerry states plus IA, then he needs just 11 more electoral votes to win the election. Possibilities include:

1) The Midwest option: IA + IN or MO

2) The Southwest option: IA + CO and NM or NV

3) The Mid-Atlantic option: IA + VA or NC

Also, IA + OH would allow Obama to lose NH.

____________________

faithhopelove:

Here's one more poll--Obama +7.5 in WA:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-913.html

____________________

irishanalyst:

Player: That does not figure for NC, VA and maybe MO. My perception is the AA vote has been less than national average and will now exceed greatly.

On the other topic Rasmussen keeps moving the goalposts to keep McCain ahead. RCP still has the 54-44 Gallup poll in their average. It's amusing to see RCP post Ras at 9.30am when it favors M and at noon when it favors O - juvenile.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boskop

Re Afghanistan

McCain frightens me 1000 times more. He has bad instincts for a guy who has seen service. He's a typical flyer: Old Marines, Infantry, Special Forces aren't quite so irresponsible at committing so readily to conflict.

No one I know who has seen combat is quite so bellicose, its as though he has a complex because his service record is largely one of failure.

GWB had a paternal complex problem that got us into Iraq.


____________________

DPartridge:

tjampel

You lump "conservative Dems" together... there are a whole lot of conservative Dems/Indies like myself that will cast their vote for McCain BECAUSE of the social issues Palin brings to the ticket...

Obama has built his campaign on "Change." But change from what? 4 more years of Bush is how they're trying to leverage it. But a whole lot of "change" Americans want change that supports NEITHER party... McCain votes 90% Bush... Obama votes 97% Reid... what we want is CHANGE from what Washington does as its day to day business. And for that, you have to look at somebody like Palin and McCain who has fought their own party on issues... When has Obama fought the Dem's on ANY major issue??? When has Biden???

Therein lies the rub for the Dem's as this election goes forward... as I see it.

____________________

boskop:

@zotz

you know, you're an idiot.

read lincoln's second inaugural address. she was quoting that. he was referring to the awful war he was forced to wage and hoping that he had some moral ballast for it.

every single answer obama has given since day one about pakistgan and ag=fgahnistgan has been war mongering.

the first time out he said he might have to nuke em.

saying no to one war does not validate starting two others

zardari and karzai have told us to stay the hell out. keep our ****ing predator drones out and forget it.

if you think for one instant that antagonizing these gentleman whose leadership at best sketchy because of the taliban, hizbollah, iran
and al qaeda then think again.

their world is not about hurricanes and hot dogs and public schools. it's a whole other ball of wax and we better stay the hell out of it.

____________________

Snowspinner:

player - Actually, the majority of African Americans live in the south in states Obama is unlikely to win.

____________________

boskop:

@thoughtful

I couldnt agree with you more about bush43's paternal problem which got us into the war.
SAddam Hussein dared finger his daddy and he had to get him back.

which proves my point, thank you.

wars are waged by men from personal emotions.\\
obama has a worse daddy complex?? prove himself to a father who was never there. he keeps looks for surrogates, alinksy, frank whatever in hawaii, wright, ayres, and believe it or not even biden.

he wants to be macho too, to a phantom dad.
you watch, he's nuts.

____________________

slinky:

Palin, if elected, also casts tie-breaker votes in the Senate. When Ed Koch endorsed Obama earlier this week, he said that was the deal breaker for him with McCain/Palin. He doesn't want somebody that naive casting votes in the senate.

Never mind as President.

____________________

player:

@thoughful:
I am a war veteran who has actually been in combat. I gave up owning weapons after I got out of the army. I don't want war. I have witnessed what it does in real time. So has McCain. Its the ones who have never been in a war or know the realities of war that scare me the most. They have no idea of the consequences and effects it has on real lives here and there. It is different in reality than it is on a computer game console.

____________________

irishanalyst:

Snowspinner: Yes but there are signicant numbers in NC, VA and MO.

____________________

slinky:

@DPartridge,

What in the hell are you talking about? When has McCain fought the party on anything (effectively) in the Bush Admin? Guantanamo? Torture? Troop Strength?

Commmmmon, get outta here.

____________________

player:

@Snowspinner:
Yes, you are correct. However, they have an large effect on the electorate in Maryland, N,J, Penn, Mass, and NY.

____________________

slinky:

VA? What?

Body armor?

You repugs are dumb dumb dumb

____________________

thoughtful:

DPartridge

Take on your party

You know lets end this thing now: Obama, the JUNIOR SENATOR, effectively took on the Clintons for the Leadership of The Democratic Party and won.

You can't do more than take over the Leadership of a political party. People like you are FOS

____________________

slinky:

Country is bankrupt, Fannie and Freddie are in receivership, Lehman is going down, AIG in trouble, GM losing money hand over fist, we have no troops to deploy (anywhere!) in an emergency, and you dopes think McCain is the answer!

Ohmygod you are dumb.

____________________

slinky:

Read Tom Friedman's column today. Oh, well, I'm sure you'll think it's liberal trash. Well, then, read it anyway. I'll read whatever you force down my throat in return:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?hp

____________________

slinky:

Yes, but blacks are so effectively disenfranchised in most southern cities (and I include Nashville and St. Louis in that rubric) that their votes count for nothing.

It will be very interesting to see the St. Louis City/ St. Louis County split this time; since the AAs in St.L City are very motivated to go to the polls (if they're registered).

____________________

zotz:

boskop-
I must be because I can't see any connection between these wars and Lincoln. Obama has said that we are overextended militarily which is the truth.

So you think we should vote for McCain because he is so much in favor of peace. You really DO think we are idiots don't you?

____________________

thoughtful:

Saw Friedman on Faroud's Show on CNN, the man has really got insight and foresight.

____________________

dr_craig:

One statistical flaw of Rasmussen's method is that it is an unbiased estimate of the true Obama vs. McCain difference (to the extent that random-digit dialing [RDD] can even be called unbiased) if the party ID breakdown he uses is exactly correct. It's unlikely that it is, and this affiliation likely doesn't change as rapidly as reflected in his polls.

The advantage of simple random samples is that while they may vary from day to day in the number of democrats vs. republicans vs. independents, the Obama vs. McCain difference is unbiased as much as RDD can be.

While it's dangerous to mix polls with different methodologies, if Obama and McCain were exactly tied, the separation of these 4 polls is entirely plausible.

So, tybo, no bounce left, or very little -- leave the analysis to the statisticians.

____________________

slinky:

Yes, Friedman is smart,but he argued in favor of the 'war of choice' which is Iraq. Stupidly and blindly, I followed his logic and agreed with him at the time.

I now see that it is an endless morass, impossible to 'win', and a play for oil. Furthermore, without WMD and with a fuzzy mandate and lots of lies motivating the 'war of choice', it's fair to say Tom and I made the biggest boo-boos of our lives by favoring American involvement in Iraq.

Luckily, there are prescient people out there like Obama, who are smarter than us.

____________________

boomshak:

All of the Palin, etc stuff aside, here are the TWO ISSUES that John McCain can win on if he is smart enough to go here:

- America is a center/right country. As proof of this, no Democratic Presidential Candidate has gotten more than 50% of the popular vote in the last 30 years and only twice in the last 60 years. One of those times was Jimmy Carter who barely squeaked by with 50.4%.

- Although Barack Obama is running as a centrist right now to get votes (complete opposite of how he ran in the primaries) he has voted as a strong liberal his entire political career. Joe Biden is considered to be quite liberal.

- The House and Senate are run by strong liberals.

- If elected, Obama will surely fill the Judiciary with liberal judges, pulling a Bill Clinton, "fire-em-all" move.

ISSUE #1: Is America, a center/right country, prepared to give ABSOLUTE POWER to the most liberal members of our political universe? I say NO, and McCain needs to stop running against Obama and his cult of personality and start running on this. Unfettered liberal power in Washington is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

ISSUE #2: Barack Obama's tax plan is insanity. 75% of those in the 1% of wage earners aren't CEO's making $300 million bucks. They are small business owners who file as individuals because corporate tax rates are too high and dividends get double taxed.

Under Barack Obama's Tax Plan, these small business owners (who employ most of America's workers) would pay 56 cents on every dollar they make in taxes (income and social security). This means that every small business in America would be working until August of each year just to pay taxes.

As a sMAll business owner myself, I take risks and expand my business based upon my potential return on investment. If you explode my tax burder to 56%, I will not buy new equipment, I will not hire new staff and I will not expand my business. I will put my money elswhere. You want outsourcing of jobs? Just wait till business owners pay 56% of what they make in taxes. You will see a flood of jobs going overseas where taxes are lower.

McCain needs to spell this out for the American people. They are blinded my Obama's rhetoric about 95% of all tax payers getting a $500 tax break.

IN CONCLUSION:
I believe that if John McCain focuses on these two issues between now and Nov 4th, he will win by a comfortable margin.

____________________

player:

If the economy is on the brink, Obama should lose. Its that simple. His policies are tax and spend. You can't do that when the economy is in a bad way. He wants all these new programs like health care and free tuition that cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Where is he going to get the money? You guessed it. Taxes go up an up. Do you actually think that the American people are going to turn their country over to a rookie in times of serious troubles? That seems to be wishful thinking. I think that McCain gets the helm for four years to keep the country steady as she goes through troubled waters and then the American people will decide if change is warranted. Thats just my opinion.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

Who is being polled here anyway, how are they being polled? I have never in my life been polled by anyone on anything. I don't know anyone who has ever gotten these calls either. Caller ID? Most people I know don't answer the phone if we don't recognize the number calling.

It seems you would have to think that minorities and younger voters will have a lot more sway in this election than any previous. How are the polls accounting for this.

The demographics of MO and IN are much the same. As stated by irishanalyst above, add IN to NC, VA, and MO, factor in the youth vote that doesn't get polled, and all three states seem to be Obama's to lose.

____________________

Tybo:

dr craig,


you do realize that you are incapable of analysis?

____________________

Ryan in MO:

correction... all 4 states

____________________

zotz:

"As a sMAll business owner myself, I take risks..."

Nobody wants to take away your lemonaide stand!
Just Relax!

____________________

thoughtful:

@player

The distinction i was and am making is one between the arm services.

I was going to draw on the awful realities of war from a personal perspective, but you did that for me.

As I say McCain frightens me as he seems to have a chip on his shoulder. He is too bellicose in his response to International situations requiring diplomacy.

Armed conflict is a last resort, Obama recognizes that. McCain apparently doesn't.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

"Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/

____________________

slinky:

Small business owners that are netting millions of dollars a year.

Now, I'm a guy with rich friends, and I feel certain you have no idea what you are talking about about Obama's tax plan.

____________________

RS:

It's hilarious to watch even long-time Pollster readers try to make much ado about variations within MOE.
Two facts:
1. National polls do not matter unless there's a landslide. Ask Gore, Al.
2. Folks may mock dailykos/R2000, but their results are not different from Gallup or Hotline or even Ras (though some folks now mock Hotline as well... sour grapes?) More importantly, which of these four pollsters is most transparent?

Now, if the R2K poll showed Obama up 53-46 or something today, I'd be suspicious - but as things are, most people spitting on this poll are just displaying their own bias/ignorance.

____________________

slinky:

I also think you don't know squat about healthcare.

Look up this program, maybe you'll learn something (probably not; you seem to be learning disabled):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Try and get a handle on what the US isn't doing very well at; then, try to get better at it.

Capiche?

If we don't get better as a nation, we get worse.

Let's get better.

____________________

change:

Mcsame followers are stupid: you argue that mcsame will win consider this:

right now mcsame is at the height of his campaign, and if the election were tommorow he wouldn't get 270 in the electoral college - obama would!

furthermore, mcsame's untruthful attacks are exciting the obama base he raised 66 million in august- mcsame will have to use public financing!

In order for mcsame to win he must hold at least a 5-6 point lead in national polls - because we all know turnout is gonna favor obama+ they have gained millions of new voters while republicans have lost voters

so go ahead celebrate, please celebrate because you think a guy that voted with 90% of time will win!

____________________

dr_craig:

@tybo

I have a Ph.D. in statistics so, in fact, I am quite capable of analysis. What are your qualifications and education?

____________________

boomshak:

Ok, let's have some fun.

Obama Supporters, name for me three signifcant accomplishments from his political/business career that qualify him to be POTUS? (Running for POTUS doesn't count, lol).

P.S., I personally love asking this question because I am usually lucky to get even one substantive example.

____________________

serpounce:

boomshak,

I apologize, I think you missed my meaning. I didn't mean to claim that you said anything inappropriate towards or about me, I was rather commenting on the general addition of unnecessary rhetoric to your, otherwise very good, posts.

____________________

player:

@Thoughtful:
McCain talks in the mode of a Republican. They want other radical countries to think they carry a big stick and that they will use it. In reality, McCain would only go to war as a last resort. Once you have seen and participated in that kind of inhuman savagery up close and personal, you don't want no more of it. Ask anyone who has actually participated in one. Not only that, the democrats control both houses of congress. They would have to give him an approval for war. They aren't about to do that.

____________________

boomshak:

Here's another question for Obama Supporters.

Obama was in the State Senate for 8 years. Surely long enough for a man of his abilities to change the world to have a long list of significant achievements.

Give me 3.

Lol.

____________________

zotz:

tybo does have a doctorate (in proctology!)

____________________

boomshak:

serpounce,

One man's unnecessary rhetoric is another man's brilliant conclusion.

Speaking of rhetoric, I don't think this election is about "change" at all. That's just smoke. This election is about "competence". I think THAT is the thing Americans are really hungry for and the candidate who can sell competence wins.

People waant "change" from Bush because they thought he was "incompetent". "Change" is the vehicle, "competence" is the destination.

Your thoughts?

____________________

boomshak:

zotz,

Don't laugh, proctologists make bank! A colonoscopy takes 30 minutes and they charge $3,000 for it! Lol.

____________________

Snowspinner:

boomshak:

Ethics reform in the Senate.
Police reform in the form of requirements to videotape confessions.
Expansion of children's health services in Illinois.
Anti-racial profiling legislation
Reform to federal spending requiring greater transparency in spending

That's five.

____________________

metsmets:

Let me ask our Republican friends something:

Georgia - if Georgia had been invited into NATO, would you be prepared to commit American armed forces to defend Georgia's borders because they are fellow members of NATO? McCain and Pallin both expressed such sentiments. Is this sensible foreign policy to risk WWIII on a tiny country that borders Russia? Seriously, it is a question.

____________________

dr_craig:

The following cited accomplishments from Wikipedia for a start in the Illinois house: "During his first years as a state senator, Obama was able to pass bills creating the Illinois' Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, establishing a $100 million Earned Income Tax Credit for working families, increasing child care subsidies for low-income families, and requiring advance notice before mass layoffs and plant closings.
However, legislative victories during this period were rare due to Republican control over the Illinois Senate.
Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in January 2003. The new Democratic majority allowed Obama to write and pass more legislation than in previous years. He sponsored successful efforts to expand children's health care, create a plan to provide equal health care access for all Illinois residents, and create a "Hospital Report Card" system, and worker's rights laws that protected whistleblowers, domestic violence victims, equal pay for women, and overtime pay. His most public accomplishment was a bill requiring police to videotape interrogations and confessions in potential death penalty cases. Obama also led the passage of a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped."

Not much there to help the top 1%, so I can see how Republicans might argue he didn't do much.

____________________

illinoisindie:

@boomshak
Is that a trick question or do you really want to know...

____________________

serpounce:

Boomshak,
Competence is certainly one aspect of the “change” people are looking for, but I think the reason that the “change” meme has continued (and spread to the McCain campaign) is that there are many facets to the change people are looking for. If it could be reduced to a more concrete idea like “competence” it think it would have been.

And re:civility, at the very least, no matter how brilliant your conclusions, it doesn’t help its validity to put it in all caps.

____________________

slinky:

boomshak,

If you question is, Would McCain be more competent than Bush, the answer is a resounding "yes".

But, your standard is surprisingly low. My 13 year old would be more competent than Bush.

The world is in huge crisis. There are problems I do not have a clue to solving. There is no way that McCain or Palin have any clue if I don't. Obama has many clues, great advisors, and capability to stimulate brilliant out of the box thinking by the smartest people in the nation and the world.

Capiche?

No contest.

Obama is smart.

You want a smart person leading America.

Sorry that he's black; but it's not his fault.

(You racist bastards).

____________________

player:

I grew up in a small town with a pop of about 800 in western NC. There was a man who owned a furniture store in this town. He was also a state senator. In grade school, I was classmates with his son who was my age. I don't think that he would have had the qualifications to be president. However, president Kennedy who was president at that time, was rumored to have wanted the governor of our state Terry Sanford to replace Johnson as his VP. State senators have very small responsibilities in any state. There could be 35 to 50 state senators for a state.

____________________

slinky:

And, boomshak,

you are not noted for your civility.

____________________

slinky:

Yeah, well, with my many degrees, I went to school with alot of guys who have been in elective office, including Congress, and I gotta tell you that Obama is one of the smartest guys ever to trample Cambridge.

Period.

____________________

NeuTral:

@metsmets:
Isn't that the attitude that started WWII?? "Oh its on Poland..."

____________________

slinky:

Can we get to the polls, please?

I want to understand Ohio, since I fear it is determinative.

OK, I know about other scenarios, but, I am concerned about Ohio.

Just what is the state of the voting machines in Ohio, and what have they decided about students?

That controversy over student residency remains raging in Virginia, and perhaps won't be determinative there, but it might.

What about these issues in Ohio?

____________________

player:

@slinky:
Haven't you heard? The only person that can ever remember Obama at Columbia is a Muslim drug addict that he lived with for a while. The VP candidate with the Libertarian party was in Obama's graduating class of 83 and says that he never ever saw him or met him or can find any classmate who did. This sounds strange to me.

____________________

slinky:

Actually, Boomshak, you are wrong about what this election is about. It's about vision. It's about the future; and it's about what America is.

So, it's far more important than 'competence'.

Achievements: Presumably since Harvard; cuz I would call Law Review one.

OK, Teaching Con. Law at one of best law schools in US. Helping down-and-out people South Side of chicago. Reforming Healthcare in Illinois, Consistently opposing invading Iraq in Congress (even though Stupid me thought it was a good idea), getting to the bottom of military stupidity around troop protection by touring and asking lots of 'dumb' questions of high level military. "Duh, I dunno why we can't hold that province..."

Anyway, you're just looking for trouble.

That's what I mean boomshak. You don't really
want a future for America.

You just want a dolt in the WH and for President of the senate.

____________________

boomshak:

Snowspinner,

"Ethics reform in the Senate.
Police reform in the form of requirements to videotape confessions.
Expansion of children's health services in Illinois.
Anti-racial profiling legislation
Reform to federal spending requiring greater transparency in spending"

Is that legislation he wrote or just voted for? This is the man who is going to change the world and in 8 years, that's it?

Wow, just wow.

____________________

slinky:

Bush gave approval to sell the Israelis bunker busters today, dopes.

Read it on the front cover of the Jerusalem post.

I swear you guys are a bunch of good-for-nothings.

____________________

slinky:

The world, kids, is in crisis.

Heaven help us if that crisis is managed by McSame and "lipstick" Palin.

Truly.

Heaven help us.

____________________

boomshak:

slinky,

What will you say when your boss that has to pay 56% in taxes can no longer afford your salary and he lets you go?

How do you like that future?

If Obama is as competent and effective in the future as he has been in the past, we are all in serious trouble.

____________________

favrejet2008:

Slinky;
Helping down and out people in Chicago SS. Obama's idea of reform is to actually help people worse off than himself. Mcc wants to help people who are better off than himself (tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, etc.) As for Mcc, he says now that he is going to reform Wash.; he was in the Senate for 28 years and I fail to see any reform legislation he got passed that helped common folk. He also says there is wasteful spending and earmarks in the budget he wants to cut. Well, why has it taken him 28 years to say he wants to cut it? Mcc is not a dolt, he is a PHONY.

____________________

slinky:

Here's McCain's pilot record [Frankly, I couldn't believe it when I read it].

I am happy to hear refutations.

But, it sounds like the guy we all have learned to grit teeth with.

Sure helps to be the son of an Admiral.

http://tinyurl.com/2vhef8


____________________

slinky:

If my boss needs to pay 56% in taxes, he's making a helluva lot of money, and he can still afford little-old me. Anyhow, I thought in this economy of ours that the Harvard saying applies: "Every tub on its own bottom". I'm trying to get my unit to be completely self-sufficient, with balanced books by 2010. I doubt very much that under those conditions, given what I do, where I am, what I've got, and what my future is, that I would be out on the street.

Capiche?

I believe in the future! A glorious future! With good healthcare for all, and without reliance on oil!!!!!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Boomy.

____________________

favrejet2008:

Slinky;
thanks. Why Mcc is not being "swiftboated" on this, I have no idea. And they attacked John Kerry on his supposed bad Vietnam war record. They are all hypocrites.

____________________

slinky:

I can answer that, about not using McCain's record against him.

Two reasons:

(1) The Davids running Obamas campaign, and Obama think that the campaign should be run in a honest forthright fashion. There should be no smearing, no personal attacks, no slime at all. I heartily disagree with them about this, but, after all, they are running it. I am just a guy somewhere around the beltway.

(2) It might backfire: One of the logics of the Davids is that Rove attempts to make everything thrown at him look dirty, and so, any effort to sling mud will result in much more mud being slung back. Sort of the '..you can't attack a skunk and come out smelling sweet strategy...'.

Of course, since I know the high officials on the other side, who have absolutely no compunction about lying until they are blue in the face (I'm obviously talking about the repub and conser. strategists), they would do it in an instant if the tables were turned.

So, Obamas gotta run a proper campaign because he has ethical principles,

McCain's advisors have none, so that's not a problem.

They've told me that '..the win will wash away anything we did to make it happen..',

and they really believe that.

Now, you know how bad the crisis in America, really is.

____________________

ritwingr:

Somebody asked where McCain fought his party. Well, he was wrong in every single instance, but the short list is:

1) Political Speech Rationing (see McCain-Feingold);

2) He buys into the Global Warming Scam (see McCain-Lieberman);

3) He opposed Bush's tax cuts, citing leftist class-warfare type reasons ("TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!")

4) He opposed (and still ignorantly opposes) drilling in ANWR. Mustn't disturb the caribou, you know!

5) He wants to close Guantanamo and give terrorists access to our court system with habeas corpus, constitutional rights, etc. Pure lunacy.

6) He's open-borders and pro-amnesty (see McCain-Kennedy).

7) He lent aide and comfort to the left in its jihad against Donal Rumsfeld, and in fact led the charge.

8) He OPPOSED the Consitutional Option Bill Frist was ready to implement to block the logjam on GOP judicial nominations, selling 3 superbly qualified appellate court nominees down the river in the process.


There's 8 pretty significant areas wher McLame opposed his own party. Now I'll settle for half that number of instances where The One opposed HIS party. Naming post offices doesn't count.

And as you can probably tell, I'm NOT a McCain supporter.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

____________________

ritwingr:

I'm from Chicago and I know about about David Axelrod. He's as sleazy as they come, tied into the Daley machine 8 ways from Sunday. Ethics means absolutely nothing to him - and in private conversations he'll tell you asw much.

Axelrod is a committed leftist who shares Obama's radical worldview and associations. His cover is that of a PR flack, though he really exists to provide cover for ultra leftwing politicians. He's a bad, unprincipled, dangerous guy.

____________________

Snowspinner:

boomshak - I am not sure what sort of transformative legislation you were looking for in the state of Illinois. Perhaps you can give me an example of what you consider an accomplished Illinois state senator.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - On your list of 8, I am capable of mustering up some vague sense of outrage over... ummm... 1 and 3? I guess?

____________________

slinky:

I have never had a look at Obamas Undergrad Transcript, but he got into Harvard Law, which should tell you something. Here is a picture of him upon graduation from Columbia:
http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/?p=7016

It's pretty difficult to transfer into an Ivy League school like Columbia from a medium school like Occidental, but he did it.

Like I told you, he is very smart. Period.

He was one of those kids, and he's one of those guys.

I don't know him personally. I know alot of the people he is surrounded by, and they are very smart.

____________________

slinky:

Axe is a very nice boychik. He will never tell a lie. Don't disparage my friends.

____________________

slinky:

Daley! Hah! You think that Obama's supporters were IN the convention hall in '68? They were out on the streets!

No machine politics here. Just lots of grassroots organizing.

____________________

slinky:

Maybe for a republican, points 1-8 are a big deal.

Maybe.

For me, they all look like diddly squat.

And, some of them, like McCain-Finegold didn't even stick, because of the Seapreme Courtiers.

I think if McCain were a lawyer, he might have figured that out, or maybe counseled Bushie not to hire Stevens.

But, maybe not.

I don't understand the mind of a Repug.

____________________

Snowspinner:

More than intelligence, for me, what is so important about Obama is a sense of subtlety and nuance, and an appreciation of these things. After a disastrous eight years of a President who trusts instinct over evidence, and ideology over reason, and who was one of the most viciously anti-intellectual public figures this country has ever seen, what is needed, more than anything, is a culture of intellectualism.

Obama's speeches, books, and thought have demonstrated a commitment to subtlety, nuance, reason, dialogue, and evidence. He is an intellectual man. That is, for me, the single most important issue in this election.

____________________

slinky:

Yeah, but you're intelligensia, and so am I, even though I'm writing as Brooklyn as I can get.

The massive outpouring of sentiment in favor of Obama among the young (of all ages) stems from his focus on hope, dreams, and the future. On the belief that America is a great nation, and can be again. His vision is that from such diversity flows a kind of indefatigable spirit.

I believe in it. So do my kids.

____________________

dr_craig:

@ritwingr

Didn't know there were any of your kind left in Chicago. Here's an idea - start your own far right wing party and get as many of your Republican friends to join as you can. I think there's probably room for you and your kind in Argentina.

____________________

metsmets:

@NeuTral
Nato didn't exist in 1938. Britain declare war on Germany. United States didn't. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Plus, you didn't answer the question.

Would you want a Republican administration to go to war with Russia over a former Soviet Union country? Do you agree with the McCain approach to diplomacy or not?

____________________

Snowspinner:

I think it's more than the focus on hope. If anything, I'm surprised that plays well in the current climate. The sheer absurdity of the Bush administration seems to me to have gotten to a point where only cynicism and satire even began to feel like a manageable response.

I think what hits about hope with Obama is not just the rhetoric of it, but the framing of it in a socially aware context. For me, the point where I really and truly came to support him was his post-Iowa speech. The sentence "Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it."

It is, I think, more than the optimism and talk of hope that has won him such enthusiastic support - it is the degree to which he manages to make such optimism a functional, realistic approach to politics, and the way in which he makes his sense of subtlety and nuance into more than just being an egghead intellectual, but into an expressible, graspable, believable vision and worldview.

____________________

tjampel:

DPartridge

If you like Palin on social issues the democratic party is clearly wrong for you. It's the party of abortion, gun control, gay, women, union rights, and protected species/environmental issues. We should vote for the person best suited to deliver laws and actions which fulfill our ideas and ideals as to how we should live together as citizens of this great and free land.

I respect your decision to vote for someone who speaks your language on social issues. Does this mean McCain doesn't speak it on economic and health issues? Does this mean you don't think people should be on their own when they have preexisting conditions, and they can't pony up $1500/mo for coverage, or that you don't think people earning 2 Million should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars less in taxes, while middle class families see their incomes drop in real terms. After all, if your 2 kid family makes 40k Obama's plan gives them more than $800 more than McCains with his child credit increase factored in.

Do you really agree that we should be planning our next war with Iran, and staying in Iraq years after the Iraquis themselves, now with an 80 Billion surplus thanks to the US taxpayers and our brave men and women, have asked us to go? Does the half a trillion or so we've spent in Iraq seem like a great investment in freedom? Freedom for who?

If it's more important to make sure that books about gay people are removed from libraries and making sure that our citizens have the right to purchase machine guns than it is to ensure that your wife's (or husband's) diabetes gets proper medical attention when you are between jobs then you should should definitely vote for McCain.

Change is about 2 groups of ideas.

1. Nuts and bolts stuff like tax changes, health care changes, switching to renewable energy before the rest of the ice cap melts and floods the coasts of the world, etc.

2. Process changes which are reflected in laws increasing transparency in how government is run. One example Making all bills coming through congress a completely transparent process so we know exactly who's asking for what and who's trying to deliver pork to Alaska (or some other place). This is needed immediately. It IS what people want. Also making other government processes transparent can't possibly be a bad thing. That way we won't have VP Cheney letting oil companies write environmental bills.

This is an area Obama has worked on consistently since he's been in Congress. Here's the bills he's sponsored or cosponsored:

Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
Stop fraud (2280)
Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
Open government (2180, 2488)
Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal
contract (674)
Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts
(2147) Resctrictions awarding government contracts (2519) He's worked with conservative Republican Senator Coburn on these issues. So he does have a record of reaching across the aisle.

He's also done something substantive on nuclear proliferation. That's not a sexy issue but unsecured nukes in Russia sounds like very bad news to me. He reached out to Senator Lugar to work on this issue in a bipartisan manner.

He's worked with McCain on global warming too. Both candidates recognize the dangers of global warming, but only Obama is willing to really fight for making renewables a top priority. McCain will.....drill baby drill, and we'll see a trickle of oil from it in about 7 years (some say nothing significant for 20-30 years).

He sponsored or cosponsored over 500 piece of legislation. Happy to provide the entire list.

Now, please tell me....what else do people want that you refer to; what kind of change that neither candidate is proposing? Maybe you have some good ideas there.

____________________

ritwingr:

Dr Craig:

That must be the sort of "subtlety and nuance" Snowspinner is talking about.

But doctrinataire socialism isn't "subtlety," no matter how much all your friends might tell you it is. And blind hatred of the successful isn't "nuance."

It's just old-fashioned visceral hatred. Directed at politically acceptable targets, of course: "the rich," the "religious right," oil companies, and evil Republicans of course.

Funny though how people who fancy themselves so nuanced and thoughtful never notice that they're a thousand times more intolerant than those they label as such. Introspection, thy name isn't "Leftist."

The poem below was written over 50 years ago, but it's more applicable today than when first written. You might want to think about it.

----------

The Angry Man
by Phyllis McGinley

The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.

“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.

Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”


____________________

slinky:

I think the 'balanced view' of the media is, in fact, doing alot of damage to the Obama campaign. In Pennsylvania, you've got people calling Obama a nigxxr. While in the Obama campaign you've got people saying McC showed poor judgement, was impulsive, and opportunistic, in a self-serving way in picking and defending Palin. And, the Rove plan is to attack Obama for anything he says that's negative: And, the media doesn't give him anything, so he picks a phrase from a book written by a McCain advisor recently. I mean, it's an incredible joke. But, that's what they're going with. They don't want to call him a nigxxer to his face, but that's their intention, IMHO.

Here's some quotes from a NYTimes blog, if you don't believe me:

all signs of end stage democracy in America.
— Jack

How come no one says what is actually happening in these states? These people are voting for McCain because he is an old white man and he looks like them. They are racist and are afraid of black people. Let’s move on and educate people instead of calling it something that it isn’t.
— Karley


I am a PA resident. My dad and his whole side of the family (aunts, uncles, cousins.. ) will vote for McCain. My mom and her entire side of the family will vote for Obama.

Much to my chagrin, my dad’s side of the family will vote for McCain as a vote against a black man for president. They were not initially excited about McCain because they remember him as the McCain of old (aka the maverick). Nor are they more excited about him because he picked Palin (they are not naive enough to believe she is qualified to be VP or commander in chief, if necessary).

My mom and her side of the family are mostly teachers and feel that a vote for Obama brings the promise of education reform to our failing schools.

— Julie from PA

____________________

slinky:

@rightwinger

News flash:

You're the intolerant one.

And, you don't understand Obama's economic policy.

Do you think the FTC is working? Did you read the NYTimes Article on Google Today? Did you
think Teddy Roosevelt had some good ideas?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/technology/13nocera.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

____________________

slinky:

@tjampel

Thank you for your list.

____________________

ritwingr:

I think all associations between individuals should be voluntary and mutually consensual.

I believe the government should be limited to its constitutionally authorized duties of providing for the court system and a military.

I believe that if YOU think someone is in need of help, YOU should provide it rather than try to use the coersive power of the state to steal the fruts of others' labor to provide it.

I believe in liberty and individualism.

That means everyone - even you - should be able to do whatever you wish so long as you don't initiate coersion against another. Worship as you wish. Carry the weapons you wish. Believe what you want to believe. Use your property as you wish. Keep the fruits of your labor. Associate with others - or not - precisely as you wish to.

Radical stuff, huh?

Nothing that computes for you, though, I'm sure. I'd guess you're a product of the public schools.

____________________

slinky:

No one has let the FTC work since Reagan.

Now, we're cleaning up the mess.

Or would you like, rightwinger, to see more Enrons?

I was in California when the energy futures market boomed and busted. No one in California wants to see more Enrons. And, neither Bush nor McCain, nor the Republican party, seem to understand how to stop them from occurring.

Incidentally, unregulated markets are decidedly NOT orderly. Or is that news for you?

____________________

slinky:

rightwinger,

Yes, you are the dope I thought you were.

The internet would not exist with your rules.

Grow up.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - While I'm certainly not going to deny the existence of idiotic leftists, I would hope that you are similarly willing to acknowledge that the right has its share of unjustifiable anger, and no shortage of supporters who seem more invested in the defeat of their opponents than in any actual progress for the country.

On the other hand, there is no shortage of anger - indeed, righteous anger - that is justified on the left. The hypocrisy of the Clinton impeachment, the shocking abuses of power of the Bush administration, the lie-filled smear campaigns against Obama - all of these are justifiably sources of outrage. I have no doubt that you have some similar list of offenses committed against the right.

Again, this is not the point. I, at least, have no objection to "the rich." On the other hand, I am more willing to see a rich man have to settle for a 3000 square foot house instead of a 4000 square foot house than I am to see a poor man die because he can't afford health care. This, to my mind, is not anger at the rich - it's an acknowledgement that my family can lose a thousand dollars and suffer less for it than some families do losing a hundred.

The religious right... well, when you add the "right," perhaps. Certainly I think Dobson, Robertson, and some other people of similar ideologies hold to a destructive and horrifying ideology. I think they stand for a sickening perversion of Christianity. I think that virtually none of their ideas about public policy should be implemented. Then again, I am also no relativist. I am willing to call those who tell me that my gay family members should not be allowed to visit their partners in the hospital wrong, sick, and, in the worst cases, evil. Not because they are "intolerant," but because I genuinely believe, with every fiber of my being, that they are destructively wrong.

Oil companies? Certainly in the face of scientific consensus of the climate crisis and the necessary limitations of fossil fuels I think that there is something breathtakingly irresponsible about the positions of many oil companies. I think putting profit ahead of the long-term sustainability of human civilization is a poor idea. I think that the separation of fiscal and moral responsibility is one of the most destructive things about contemporary economics. But again, this is not, to me, a socially acceptable target. I have just as little patience with the violent and unproductive tactics of many on the environmentalist side.

As for Republicans, I certainly do not hate the many members of my family who are Republicans, much as I question their judgment on politics - particularly this election, where I think the need to get away from the path the US is on is as strong as it has been in living memory.

I do not pretend that the Democratic party is a party of tolerance and introspection. But I see, in Obama, a willingness to listen to and debate reasonably opposing viewpoints, and a clear focus on careful, reasoned thought.

Both have been devastatingly lacking for the past eight years.

____________________

slinky:

So, there you have it. His vision of America and mine.

In his vision, we all live behind walls (at least those who can afford it) with bunkers in our basements. Our kids attend private schools (those of us who can afford it) and never mix with the rif-raff. We all fly jets and drive fancy cars (those who can afford it) because we done't fund public transit. We go to private hospitals, and have private doctors, because the few public ones, where they dump corpses living or dead on the street, aren't sanitary for us.

The royal America; brought us by the royal McCain and the Royal right wing.

you must be friends with my conservative friends.

I've heard your spiel before. It is frightening and revolting.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - I am curious, what is your position on inheritance? I can see the logic of your stated set of ideals - but where it goes wrong, for me, is the idea that because I was born to a well-off family that could afford to send me to college, I get opportunities for advancement that a kid born to a single mom working two jobs just to put food on the table simply will never have.

Were our opportunities for success not so constrained by the circumstances of our birth, the rhetoric of individual freedom would, to my mind, be far more persuasive.

____________________

dr_craig:

@ritwingr

I will agree with you on one thing - leftists are intolerant.

We're intolerant of intolerant people like you. In case you haven't noticed, America - unfortunately - is the last stand of your kind in the Western world. And the sooner your kind is gone, the better.

____________________

slinky:

spinner,

this guy is against the income tax.

please.

He didn't read a word you said.


(OK, he'll put up with the tax for Military appropriations, no other reason).

He still never heard a word you wrote.

____________________

slinky:

So I assume you are a racist, right winger.

Associate with who you wish... not with who you wish.

Forget about the 14th amendment, right?

____________________

slinky:

Yeah, I know, not binding on the states, right?

____________________

ritwingr:

Snowspinner/Slinky:

I'm sorry that you find the concept of freedom so frightening. I'm sorry that you can't see that those who find homosexuality appalling are every bit as entitled to their beliefs as those who find it hunky-dory. Personally I'm in the latter category...but I respect those who disagree.

I'm sorry that your mind is so closed that you believe the 40,000 scientists who have signed a peition saying "global warming" is bunk are all uneducated rubes. It IS bunk by the way - world temperatures haven't risen since 1998. That isn't really the point though, is it? The point is that it's YOUR side who wants to shut down debate. It's YOUR side who has senators write letters to Exxon threatening them with retaliation if they continue fighting those who are perpetrating this scam.

Marxism failed. Those who rue that failure are using the Global Warming scam to try to reassert goverment control over every aspect of our lives from the type of car we drive to the type of toilet we may have to how much water we may run through our shower heads. Oh and its the same crew who gave us these crappy light bulbs, too.

I despise environmentalism and everything it represents: bureaucracy, statism, and reverence for the primitive at the expense of human comfort. I take extra effort to turn on every possible light I can in public buildings. It isn't much, but it makes me feel better.

Face it, freedom scares you. You fear that in a truly free society you couldn't cut it. So you look at the "rich" with unconatined, drooling envy. You want what THEY have. But you haven't earned it....so you convince yourself it's all ill-gotten.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you'll start to believe it.

____________________

slinky:

Here it is kids, right from the mouth of the rightwinger. As I write it, I want you to remember the troops in Alabama, that Robert Kennedy had to nationalize to protect the students entering the U. of Alabama in 1963. Here are the rightwingers words:

"Associate with others - or not - precisely as you wish to."

____________________

slinky:

Maybe America isn't ready for so brilliant, sensitive, capable and aware a person as Barack Obama.

Maybe we all need to suffer more.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

Rtwinger - are these lights that YOU pay the bill on? Or are they someone elses responsibility? Most people here in Branson, can barely make rent/utility payments every month. That is working two jobs, with no health coverage whatsoever and no benefits at all in the tourism industry. While, I suppose we are people you don't want to associate with. It amazes me how so many people that come here have so much, and those of us rely on them to not quite make it.

____________________

dr_craig:

@ritwingr

I'll repeat it - the sooner your hateful, unscientific, barbarian kind are gone from this earth, the better.

____________________

slinky:

Here's the global change report from the National Academy of the Sciences:
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/

see the graph on page 4 (figure 2).

This guy is a Bozo.

____________________

slinky:

OK, Drs. we're in charge.

Now, how the hell we gonna be sure the outcome in Ohio is accurate?

____________________

slinky:

My analysis is that Ohio decides this election. I know Snow's gonna tell me there are so many other ways...

Maybe.

But, it seems to me that If Michigan, New Mexico (which Richardson is handling brilliantly) and Pennsylvania comes to Obama (I am hoping), then Ohio is the issue.

One bummer, when I looked at the map just now: New Mexico turned yellow. Bummer. Was it always? I thought it was light blue.

____________________

slinky:

Never mind, it's just Rasmussen and Mason-Dixon pushing away from Obama recently. I don't believe those. Rasmussen cuz I still don't understand the weighting or the changes in weighting, Mason-Dixon cuz its outlier.

____________________

dr_craig:

@slinky

The NM issue is largely based on 1 Rasmussen poll showing McCain leading 49-47. Personally, without additional polling supporting this, I still see NM as blue. I don't necessarily agree on OH - we need CO and should get it. At least if it does come down to OH, we have a Democrat Secretary of State this time, so no funny business (this hasn't stopped the McCain people from trying already with their absentee ballot stuff and the caging).

____________________

change:

@ slinky

new mexico is gonna be blue the last survey that showed mccain by 2 points was during the convention bounce when he was up by 5 in national polling.. obama is spending 20 million on getting the hispanic vote out+ when the sample is RV its obama that leads by healthy margins, i honestly think ground game and money is gonna decide this election- the numbers are too close

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - I have said nothing about the right to hold the view that homosexuality is abhorrent. I support the right to hold sucha view. That is not equivalent to support for the position. People may hold offensive and stupid views. And I find some of them to be wrong and even, in some cases, evil.

As for climate change, the degree of misunderstanding of the issue your comment reveals is impressive. This is perhaps understandable, given how dismally poor the media generally is at covering science topics. However, let us note that climate change and annual temperature do differ - it is entirely possible for La Nina to cover the effects of the phenomenon when it is measured in terms of temperature shift alone.

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream scientific consensus is that humans are causing climate change. This is not a conspiracy - this is mainstream scientific consensus.

Incidentally, that list of 40,000 is a list of 400, and contained numerous non-scientists.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

ritwingr:

In your (what you think) is a Libertarian rant on what the Constitution says, I think you forgot the Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Lots of things the Cons would disagree on in there.

Also, are you in favor of the Interstate Highway System? Pushed through Congress by a Republican (Eisenhower).

Are you in favor of safe foods in the supermarket? Mostly pushed through Congress by a Republican (TR Roosevelt).

Would you have been in favor of a national transportation system of railroads if you had lived in the mid-19th century? Pushed through Congress by Whigs, Democrats and Republicans.

You must think it was a terrible waste of money when the system of institutions of higher education called land-grant universities were enacted - right? Every state has at least one (full list at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land-grant_universities ). Pushed through Congress by a Republican (Lincoln) and during war time.

In other words, you are nothing but a selfish, non-thinking, non-compassionate, puss-filled sack of skin that is not deserving of being called a human being. And that description is apropos of most, if not all, neo-cons and Libertarians of this day and age.

____________________

slinky:

I didn't know about the Democrat Sec. in Ohio. Thanks. That's a bit of a relief.

About Colorado. I have an old girlfriend there who was in the stadium (I wuzent). Intentional misspell cuz it looked cool. I'm trying to learn from my kids.

Anyhow, parts of Colorado, particularly where Nancy's from, in the West, can be quite Conservative. I worry about that. I realized that Vail, Aspen, even Rocky Mountain Park environs will side Obama; of course the Black pop. of Denver, and the hippies in Boulder, but, I know that area well, and, let's just say it could be hard in some parts of Colorado Springs, yes, and near the Utah border. Also midstate.

In Pueblo, I presume that the Spanish speakers will go with Obama, but I can't be sure of the landowners. I imagine the farmers and professionals (one of my friends is a Dentist) will go with McCain. But, I don't know for sure.

That is, Colorado, for me, is still a real toss-up. And, I feel like I know the state pretty well.

____________________

dr_craig:

@slinky

Points well taken. I guess I'm basing my assessment on the fact that even during McCain's bounce, polls still showed Obama leading. I also understand that some in CO are opposed to McCain based on a water rights issues of some kind?

____________________

slinky:

Oh, you mean the Colorado River war between Colorado and Arizona.

Yeah, McC is on the wrong side of that one from the Pueblo Farmers view. Yeah, I forgot about that, that might give Obama a better showing in the South (Pueblo) and maybe Grand Junction. I'll have to ask Nancy. That's where she is.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

dr_craig:

Re: the water rights issue - McCain has stated that he wants the Colorado River Basin treaty renegotiated. Such renegotiation would benefit Arizona and Nevada (more water to those two states), with the worst detriment to Colorado.

Here's an article from the SLC Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10260280

____________________

ritwingr:

Mike in Maryland:

"Also, are you in favor of the Interstate Highway System? Pushed through Congress by a Republican (Eisenhower)."

Nope. Republicans can be every bit the statists that Democrats are.

"Are you in favor of safe foods in the supermarket? Mostly pushed through Congress by a Republican (TR Roosevelt)."

False Dichotomy Fallacy. I.E., "Either the goverment must be responsible for food safety, or food will be unsafe." Was food unsafe for all of recorded history prior to the past century? Do you assume that absent statist intervention, there are no other means by which food can be safe to eat? Have you ever even HEARD of Murray Rothbard?

"Would you have been in favor of a national transportation system of railroads if you had lived in the mid-19th century? Pushed through Congress by Whigs, Democrats and Republicans."

No. Railroads could certainly have been built without the forceable seizure of property that accompanied their construction.

"You must think it was a terrible waste of money when the system of institutions of higher education called land-grant universities were enacted - right?"

Straw Man Fallacy. The point isn't that it was a "waste" of money. There's no such thing as a "waste" of money when two individuals are exchanging value for value. You're arguing against an assertion I never made: i.e., that education is a waste of money.

The argument is a MORAL argument. It is wrong to compel one individual to pay for the education of another against his will.

"Every state has at least one (full list at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land-grant_universities ). Pushed through Congress by a Republican (Lincoln) and during war time."

Non Sequitur Fallacy. Every state has all sorts of things. So what? What is the point here? Because all states have a thing, it is therefore a good thing?

"In other words, you are nothing but a selfish, non-thinking, non-compassionate, puss-filled sack of skin that is not deserving of being called a human being. And that description is apropos of most, if not all, neo-cons and Libertarians of this day and age."

Ad Hominem fallacy. When logic fails, call your opponent names. Typical of the left.

____________________

slinky:

Let us not allow slime to have the last word.

Here is what I think we want the 21st century America to be: I affirm and America that celebrates diversity and finds its strength therein, an America where education is available to all and each person can rise to their greatest potential, an America where all men and women are treated equally by the law, without regard to the color of their skin, their national heritage, their disabilities, their sexual preferences, or their religion. I aspire to a be a member of a creative nation that enunciates its problems in the legislature and seeks the most creative and economic solutions from its citizenry; a country that abhors selfishness, and that celebrates magnanimity almost as much as diversity. I believe in an America in which we all share the responsibility for our mutual security and our comfort, and an America that cares for the sick, the elderly, the young, the feeble, with that same magnanimity that it celebrates.

That's the America I want to live in. That is Obama's America (more or less).

____________________

ritwingr:

Let the record show...not a word in Slinky's platitudinous pronouncement about individual liberty.

Not a word.

____________________

slinky:

Individuals have ideas wingbrain. It takes a community to make them a reality.

____________________

ritwingr:

Been tried. Hasn't worked.

See USSR (1917 - 1991).

The ObaMessiah's version won't end any less horribly.

____________________

change:

guys i seriously have a feeling that obama can win with: michigan, ohio and pensylvania. i know that is wishful thinking but the latest polls show a big possibility in regards to this+ plus these places have suffered greatly by job loss and the last poll although showing obama down 4 points also indicated that if he could just consolidate his base ITS OVER..there are way more democrats then republicans in ohio!

____________________

change:

@ritwingr

your a very dumb guy for drawing an analogy with the ussr and a presidential candidate...next time if your trying to defend a candidate that supported the worst presidnt in history 90% of the time think longer and harder!

____________________

Bigmike:

Yup, we all want a better country and world to live in, we just don't agree on how to get there from here.

No candidate has a majority of EV's in their favor at this point. Too many states within the MOE. O/B has more roads to victory (counting toss up states various ways) but I don't think that makes their odds any better.

My view is the RNC bounce is doing a slow fade in the national numbers. But in the state polls, are there any that O/B really need that are moving their way? I have had a busy weekend and haven't had the chance to look at too many.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - Also not a word in any of your answers about my debunking your "40,000 scientists" claim, or my pointing out that climate change and La Nina are not contradictory.

Nor a response to my question about inheritance and the problem of unequal wealth at birth.

Just saying. Glass houses and all.

____________________

ritwingr:

change:

Brilliant. Particularly considering that The ObaMessiah voted with the Democrats in Congress 97% of the time.

Congressional approval rating: worse that Bush's.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snowspinner:

Unequal wealth at birth is a problem? Not if your in the top half. Thats one of those issues where one half has a problem and the other half doesnt.

For the record, I was in the bottom half. But with a little schooling and lots of hard dirty work my kids arent. Enough of the class envy already.

____________________

ritwingr:

Snowspinner:

Actually it's 31,000 scientists and counting:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Oh, and as for the "problem of unequal wealth at birth?" That's only a "problem" if you assume that all should have equal wealth at birth. How would you propose that come about without sacrificing the individual and the family to the collective?

BE SPECIFIC.

As for me, I'm willing to live with inequality because I value freedom above all.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ritwingr

let me get this straight.

1) you believe global warming is a scam despite the vast majority of scientists (most of which are probably pretty intelligent individuals) claiming it as fact

2) you don't believe in the basic human right of habeas corpus

3) you think drilling in a national reserve is the answer to our dependence on fossil fuel (even though some experts say it would not have an impact on prices for some 30 years)

4) you are NOT opposed to the closing of a prison that has been made famous for human rights abuses and torture

Out of curiosity, who are YOU voting for? Cause I don't think Hitler is on the ballot.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

LOL! I wonder how many of those scientists are on Exxon's payroll.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - the possibility of individuals moving up the class ladder does not erase the fact that the economic class of one's parents is an enormously effective predictor of one's economic class. Yes, it is possible to move up. But it is the exception, not the rule.

And that's not class envy. I am, by any standard, fine. I own my own house, can afford the luxury of advanced academic degrees, have health insurance, do not worry where my next meal is coming from, and have a reasonable amount of money for luxuries. I'm doing just fine. With the possible exception of a better, saner health insurance plan (mine has a terrifyingly limiting set of primary care physicians such that getting sick more than 100 miles from where I live is unduly dangerous), there's not a lot in the way of added government services under Obama's plans that I would benefit from.

____________________

Bigmike:

kerrchdavis & ritwingr

Man made global warming is scientific thoery, not fact at this time. But who gives a rats butt. How can you not be in favor of clean air, clean water, less dependence on oil bought from those who want to kill us, etc. The question is does the govt lead us to the future or the free market. I go with the market over the govt every time.

The "some experts" arguement for not drilling does not impress me. It is gonna take time for alternatives to be affordable, and until we get there we still need oil. It has to come from somewhere. And "some" experts are wrong.

Darn shame "compassionate conservate" got co-opted into something bad.

____________________

brambster:

Let me clear something up from earlier in this thread.

Rasmussen in the only pollster that I am aware of that weights by party ID. The other pollsters weight by demographics and some form of likely or registered voter model. So the numbers that they show for party ID are in fact what they found in somewhat random fashion after the corrected their sample for target demographics.

Both Rasmussen and Gallup Daily Tracking have a McCain bias in comparison to the average of all polls. Rasmussen gets their bias from weighting by party ID. Gallup likely gets it from their method of callbacks. Rasmussen has about double the skew of Gallup does on average.

There are other flawed methods out there. Naturally Zogby Interactive is very heavily weighted and they just can't correct for a volluntary sampling method without that weighting being more predictive than those actually being sampled. The USAToday/Gallup polls use a likely voter model that is very, very strict and it tends to underweight urban and younger voters. That's why USAToday/Gallup show big swings, like 7 points, from their RV to LV results.

Anyway, I haven't seen anything that said that the Diageo/Hotline or DKos/Research 2000 polls are biased or produce bad numbers in any way...yet. Some might not like their results, or who sponsors one of the polls, but these are likely both on the money where as Gallup Tracking and Rasmussen Tracking are likely skewed from 1 to 3 points in McCain's favor based on recent history.

____________________

Snowspinner:

ritwingr - That petition is a joke. No attempt is made to verify credentials, and they consider anyone with a BS (earned at any time, in any scientific field, regardless of its relevance to climatology) to be a scientist? That's meaningless. I could fill out the card with any name I wanted and claim a PhD in zoology and be counted as a scientist who opposes global warming.

Believe me. I have taught people one semester away from a BS. I do not give a damn what they think about global warming. They are not credible experts on the subject.

As for the problem of inequality, you value freedom. Very well. Please, explain to me what the child of a single mother working two jobs just to put food on the table has the "freedom" to do in your world. One without public education, so, lacking a mother with the time to do so, the child likely ends up illiterate, unable to do basic math, and poorly socialized.

What does this child have the freedom to do, exactly? The freedom to pursue a career? The freedom to support a family? The freedom to get any semblance of an education?

Freedom is more than nobody telling you what to do. Freedom is also the ability to do things.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snowspinner

So you are saying we should all have exactly the same amount of money, similar homes, the same insurance? I don't think that is what you mean, but your argument that not everyone having the same at birth is a problem sounds like you are going in that direction.

I don't think there is anywhere else on earth where everyone has the same opportunity to the degree that we do in the US. Isnt that really the big question, opportunity. If you have a chance at success, however you chose to define it for yourself, regardless of where you start at, that is more than most of the world has.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - I've gotta quibble with you there. Yes, man-made climate change is a scientific theory. But it's a misunderstanding of science to differentiate that from scientific fact. Science is not in the business of verifying theories - it's about proposing theories and trying to disprove them. Theories that explain and predict well, and that resist efforts to disprove them, are considered the best knowledge that science has.

But there are no "scientific facts" that have a stronger status than global warming at this point. Gravity is a scientific theory. The electron is a scientific theory. They're scientific theories that have resisted decades or centuries of testing, and we rely on them for countless things. But science doesn't give you facts - it gives you good theories.

____________________

player:

Rasmussen goes by party weight, but he also uses complete automated random calling. They call a 1000 people each day. The weights that they get are how people identify themselves on the phone. Rasmussen said that people are now identifying themselves more as republicans than a month ago. So the weights will change every three months or so depending on how people identify themselves.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snow

No one is in favor of poverty, hunger, illiteracy. We just differ on the best ways to deal with it. How many TRILLIONS of dollars have we spent fighting it? More of the same isn't the answer because it just hasn't worked.

The problem I have with global warming is the Man-Made part of it. We just don't have enough data going back far enough to say there is not a natural cycle at work here. Why do they call it Greenland? And the polar caps on Mars are receding. Is that Man-Made? As I stated above, I am not as concerned about the global warming aspect. There are lots of other reasons why GREEN makes good sense. And when it makes good economic sense, it will happen.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - No. I'm arguing that the problem of class inequality is a fundamental problem with ritwingr's vision of a totally free society. Because freedom is more than a lack of interference.

Obviously erasing class inequality is an impossibility without dismantling most of the social fabric of western civilization. But there are ways to lessen its impact. One of the biggest and best magic bullets we have is education. A good primary and secondary education system and a strong system of affordable higher education (both in the form of strong state university systems, a strong community college system, and a strong student loan system) is tremendously effective across a wide swath of social problems.

On top of that, affordable, accessible health care does a tremendous amount. To lesser extents, minimum wage laws that make two parents working full-time jobs enough to support a family, nutrition programs, and effective community-based social programs to lessen the pull of drugs and gangs are also major boons.

It's not a panacea. I'm not naive enough to think that class can be erased, or that the poor aren't always going to have a tougher time than the rich. But there are concrete steps we can take to lessen the impact of that gap.

____________________

ritwingr:

"1) you believe global warming is a scam despite the vast majority of scientists (most of which are probably pretty intelligent individuals) claiming it as fact."

Your source for this claim? Have you polled all scientists?

Thirty-one thousand scientists claim otherwise, and I'm sure most of them are pretty intelligent.

The man who is called "The Father of Modern Climatology," Dr. Reid Bryson, said that you could go spit in your yard and have the same impact on climate as doubling CO2.

The founder of The Weather Channel, noted meteorologist John Coleman, says it's bunk. His exact words?

"All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam."

Of course since Coleman, Bryson, the 31,000 scientists, and countless others don't share your statist worldview, they can't be intelligent, can they?


"2) you don't believe in the basic human right of habeas corpus"

How utterly vacuous. HC isn't a HUMAN right, it's a constitutional right borrowed from English common law and explicity defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, section 9, towit: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Unless you think our Constitution is binding upon the entire world, it doesn't apply to non citizens - particularly enemy combatants. We don't give prisoners of war Miranda rights, either.

"3) you think drilling in a national reserve is the answer to our dependence on fossil fuel (even though some experts say it would not have an impact on prices for some 30 years)"

Too many fallacies to count here. First, drilling in the national reserve is just ONE answer. We also need to drill offshore, build more refineries, extract oil from the shale in the Rockies, mine lots more coal (we have hundreds of years' worth!) and build nuclear plants. We have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, and we should be getting at them!

Second, what is your source for the 30 year number?

Third, the problem isn't "dependence on fossil fuel." The problem is better defined as "availability of reasonably priced fuel." Fossil fuel is neither inherently virtuous or inherently evil. It's just the most practical, economically viable, and AVAILABLE source at the moment.

"4) you are NOT opposed to the closing of a prison that has been made famous for human rights abuses and torture."

Correction: I am not opposed to the closing of a prison that a bunch of Michael Moore wannabes are depicting as a torture chamber when, in fact, its residents aren't tortured nearly enough for my taste (or as much as they deserve), and probably live better than they did wherever they came from.


"Out of curiosity, who are YOU voting for? Cause I don't think Hitler is on the ballot."

ROFLOL! You can always discern a person who doesn't really think very well by his willingness to resort to blather about "Hitler." A pretty good rule in political debate is that the first guy to mention Hitler loses.

As for your question: I'm probably voting for Bob Barr....but definitely not for the Marxist (ObaMessiah) or the Fabian Socialist (McStain).

____________________

common sense:

I have avoided going on the computer for the past two days. I watched college football on Saturday and went to a MLB game today. Reluctantly I went back on tonight and had the poor judgment to log on to this site. After taking two advils I would just like to say the following - "GET A LIFE". The election will run its course. I strongly suspect that McCainomania has reached its zenith. The economy is a mess. OK - Obama may not come without question marks but he is most likely going to win. Colorado is the key.
All polling seems to point to that. With Colorado in the DEM column all that is needed is NM and NH. Both appear to be DEM locks. I could live with John McCain as president. He is not a bad person though his judgment in the selection of Palin is terribly suspect. The country needs new leadership. Obama is bright and capable. Get over your anger and accept that he is going to win.

____________________

change:

@ right winger

please view the factual information at mclobbyist.com. how in God's name can you trust mcsame when he has 100+ lobbyists in his campaign? how can you trust him when he has in his own words said that he has been closer to bush then the any other republican? i know your answer wont adress the fact i have stated, but instead you will go off on random talk about some higher ideals!

____________________

Bigmike:

Well said Snow!

But we already have student loans, nutrition programs, a minimum wage, and social programs out the wazoo. I believe enough in what you are saying that I have spent time mentoring at a middle school. But there is not a bottomless bucket of money. I know of no proposals, by either side, that will give us more bang for our buck.

I have to differ with you on health insurance. My doctor and I have a good relationship now, and we don't need the govt in the middle of it. The idea that we can have European or Canadian health care is something I am strongly against. Our system needs some changes, to be sure. But throwing out the baby with the bath water is not a good thing.

By the way, I am an Elec Engineer and take my word for it, GREEN is coming more and more every day. But not as a govt mandate.

Player - Thanks for clear up the Ras polling.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

ritwingr babbled...
"Railroads could certainly have been built without the forceable seizure of property that accompanied their construction."

I see you know a whole lot about how the Transcontinental Railroad was financed. NOT

The only 'forcable seizure of property' that took place was the white people taking of Indian lands.

I'll bet that you start a movement to give the Indians back their land? More like a bowel movement to rid some of that puss out of your sack of skin.

Read your history. You might start with a study of the 'Pacific Railroad Act' of 1862. PBS has a summary of the Act at:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/five/railact.htm

If you are able to read and comprehend (doubtful), you'll see that it specifically states 'public lands' in several places. Private lands were not 'seized' or even part of the Transcontinental Railroad.

____________________

ritwingr:

Change, why would I want to argue on behalf of John McStain. The only difference between him and ObaMessiah is that he'll take us to hell slightly slower.

This was once such a great, free country. Either of these will be just a continuation of our 70+ year slide into collectivism, though. Maybe Obama would be better. Let the whole damned thing collapse and let people see what unbridled statism is like. No incentives. No liberty. Stultifying sameness.

I can only hope I'll be dead before it all comes to pass.

____________________

ritwingr:

Sure Mike. I'll read that as soon as you read Human Action by von Mises, or Man, Economy, and State by Rothbard.

Let me know when you've done it. Fair warning though: they contain lots of big words.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - The problem comes in how we spend it. For a variety of unfortunate reasons, we prefer to create heavily compromised programs that we underfund instead of thorough, comprehensive programs. I shudder to think what driving would be like if the Interstate Highway System had been planned and executed by the people who brought you No Child Left Behind.

If I were to put a shopping list of interventions together, here would be my top items.

1) Universal health care. Nobody should be too poor to receive medical treatment. Nobody.

2) Primary and secondary education funding. Get successful curriculums in place, pay teachers competitive wages, give adequate access to facilities and technology. Every child should have access to an education good enough for them to get into and succeed at a four year state university.

3) Higher education funding. Shore up and expand the student loan system, put a flagship, competitive research institution in all 50 states, with a solid state university system to back them up, and keep tuitions such that they are in reach of families.

4) Minimum wage laws such that a family where both parents work full-time jobs can afford to support itself.

5) A system of small grants for community based, grassroots programs to provide positive social structures in impoverished neighborhoods, and particularly inner city ones. The focus should be on sustainability and careful targeting. What we want is targeted programs that make discrete and significant differences in individual communities.

What I'd ideally cut to pay for it:

1) The parity of funding for branches of the military. Individual branches should justify their expenditures based on good data. No more throwing billions of dollars at a moronic project just to make the Air Force and Navy columns add up.

2) Phase-out of Social Security. While a popular program, it is unsustainable, and was ill-advised. It is a gigantic pyramid scheme, and will come crashing down. Dismantling it safely will incur short term difficulties, but is essential in the long term. It could readily be replaced with a stronger system of personal government bonds, which would also lessen our financial dependence on foreign investment.

3) Earmarks. McCain is right on this one. (That said, they're frankly a minor expense in the overall scheme of the federal budget.)

4) Medicare and Medicaid. This is a cheat, since I'm in favor of universal coverage, but we should note that we spend 21% of the federal budget on health care already, and that we should consider that a start towards a better system.

5) Carefully planned tax increases - primarily on the upper class where the practical impact will be minimal, and on corporate profits.

____________________

Bigmike:

Back to the election.

As it stands today, it looks like the one with the best "get out the vote" effort has to be the favorite. Anyone know where there is credible information on how prepared both sides are?

And I don't want to know how many more have registered one way or the other. It isn't the same thing. There are always millions of dems registering, and it doesnt seem to make a difference. I gues that is offset by the number converting.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

Bigmike babbled without knowing the facts...
"The idea that we can have European or Canadian health care is something I am strongly against."

"European or Canadian health care"? Something that Lush Rimbaugh told you to believe? Or maybe O'Liely? Maybe it was something you heard on Faux News?

Ever try to understand what Obama's plan actually is? Read any of his position papers?

I can tell you didn't, since he is NOT advocating for a "European or Canadian" syle of "health care".

Your comments remind me of something that Samuel Clemons, writing as Mark Twain, once said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

____________________

change:

ya lame right wing propaganda. forget reading look around you ..we have invaded a country under false premise of wmd's (mcsame+bush) we have ripped off the working class with a bad economic policy (mcsame+bush) we have tortured prisoners - by the way mcsame flip flopped on waterboarding to the the nomination of his party .. and now what 4 more years of phony b.s, the same rovian politics, the same evangelical extremist agenda? it doesn't matter if your left wing or right wing= john mcsame is not the right choice for america you know why? because he is a republican that bought into the extreme ideology of his country. i dont hate you right wing, i just cant believe that you would be willing to put us through 4 more years- do u have a heart?

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - We have a minimum wage, but we've failed to keep it even remotely in sync with inflation.

The student loan programs exist, and are one of the better pieces of government spending.

The hardest step is primary and secondary education - it's a place where what's really needed is dramatic reform in specific areas, but a number of entrenched factors make it difficult to engage in large scale reform of problem areas. That, combined with the fact that it's a monstrous problem to tackle even on the state level, little yet the federal level, is a huge problem. I won't lie - of the major programs I want to see, public education reform is the hardest one.

I am of many minds on health care. I like the doctor I see now, and have liked many of my doctors in the past. I am more invested here in outcome (universal coverage) than method (I have no strong feelings on single-payer, though I'll note it clearly can work).

Like many things where stuff has gone wrong unchecked, there are also steps that just need to be taken, painful as they may be, to improve. Even without a single payer system, we have an appalling and unacceptable waiting time for health care in the US. That needs to be reformed, and doctors need to transition to same-day and same-week appointments. That necessarily involves a rough transitional period. And it requires some solution whereby family care and general practitioners can afford to do that - right now too many of them have to keep an overfull schedule to stay in business. That leads to needless ER visits, which causes a cascading failure.

I generally like Obama's solution to coverage. I think other steps need to be taken in addition to it though.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snow

I was right. We differ on how to get there from here.

Keep the govt out of health care.

Get the feds out of education. They have never educated a single kid.

Every state I know of has one or more quality universities. Not that they are all equal, but competition makes sure the best get more students.

Your military funding suggestion may have some merit, as long as you are not talking about cutting to the bone a la Clinton and his peace dividend.

Kill Social Security. Now you will never be elected.

Corporations don't pay taxes. They collect them from their customers and pass them on to the govt.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - As for the actual election, and GoTV, it's clear that Obama made much larger initial investment. The bulk of RNC money on McCain's side is going towards his GoTV effort at this point (since RNC money is in many ways less effective than campaign money), but the fact of the matter is, GoTV is measured in time as much as in dollars - a dollar spent in June is more valuable than one spent in October, all things being equal. So while current investment is likely roughly even, Obama's larger initial investment gives him a marked advantage in this area.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

Bigmike babbling again...
"And I don't want to know how many more have registered one way or the other. It isn't the same thing. There are always millions of dems registering, and it doesnt seem to make a difference. I gues that is offset by the number converting."

The states do not provide the number of 'new' registered voters. They provide the total number who are registered by political party (in those states where that information is kept by the state). The total number of Democratic registrations is higher by millions, and the total number of Republican registrations is static at best, or lower by hundreds of thousands.

I see that you don't believe that Sam Clemens' comment had any application to your comments.

BTW - I see that you claim to be an 'Elec Engineer'. Ever hear the term 'educated fool' (and not in the Iron Maiden sense)? You fit the definition to a 'T'.

____________________

Bigmike:

Other Mike

Nope, never read any of his position papers. And I have no intention of doing so.

Why would I care what someone who is absolutely not qualified to hold the office thinks? He was a social worker for a few years, taught a little college, spent one term in the Ill senate and 2 years in the US senate. He might make a hell of a candidate in 2020, but not today.

____________________

change:

Danger: what if obama loses pensylvania?

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - Indeed, I never will be elected. :)

I also was not attempting to limit myself to federal issues. Indeed, the federal government cannot possibly manage a primary/secondary education system.

Every state has one or more decent universities. But they could sure as hell be better in almost every state as well. Though again, this is a state issue. The sad fact is, though, that education spending is one of the first and hardest hit things in a budget shortfall, and that causes some major problems.

Social Security is, of course, the least achievable of my shopping list in practical terms. Which is unfortunate, as it's the most necessary. Social Security is the template of a badly designed government program, and its collapse is inevitable. Careful spending now can soften the impact of that collapse. We cannot simply cut it - unfortunately, the solution is going to be, in the short term, more expensive than keeping it around as is. But from any sort of long-term perspective, we have to abandon ship on this one.

As for corporate taxes, indeed, there's some rather large reforms needed here. The biggest is in shareholder responsibility - as it stands, too many corporations run on a system of privatized profit, socialized risk. Hence appalling situations like a federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite CEOs of those companies pulling massive salaries as they oversaw the company's crash. As long as that's the dominant paradigm, you're right, corporate taxes are a meaningless concept.

____________________

Republicans=Ignorance:

Bigmike-

You are completely ignorant of Obama's qualifications. He was elected to the Illinois state senate in 1996 and he was reelected twice after that (it was not one term). He was elected to the US Senate in 2004 and so has been a US senator for over 3 and a half years, not 2 years.

Many former US presidents had less experience than Obama when elected.

You should just admit that you won't read his policies positions because you take pride in your ignorance.

____________________

Bigmike:

Snow, you're a good guy. You know how to make a case.

I have voted for dems before. I went to the dem caucus in 92 and ended up as an alternate delegate for Bill Clinton. Worked the phones in Oct and early Nov as part of GoTV. GHWB turned me off, but that is another story. Don't spread that around, you will ruin my image. Clinton did not have it sown up at that point, and the unions were pushing uncomitted or Jerry Brown, LOL.

But Clinton had a lot more qualifications than Obama. And he was much more to the center politically.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Republicans=Ignorance - On top of that, I'm skeptical of the basic idea of "experience" when it comes to the Presidency. I can't imagine that any experience prepares you for the job.

For me, it is more about temperament, ideas, and worldview. And in those departments, Obama seems to me the best candidate in my lifetime.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - Obama is a bit further left in some key areas than me as well. But I think, notably, that there's a separation between his personal preference and his political actions - and not in a hypocritical way. Certainly if you elected him king you'd get a different sort of results.

But I think the way he talks about problems is significant here - and worth comparing both to McCain and to a Democrat like Hillary, Edwards, or even Dukakis. All of them talk about fighting for you - taking on special interests, etc. It's a combative model. They're going to go to Washington and break stuff. Obama doesn't talk about that nearly as often. He talks about solving. That's a very, very different verb, and I think the difference is crucial.

Obama promises change, but it has always seemed to me a practical change. It's notable, I think, that despite his opposition to offshore drilling, he indicated a willingness to compromise on it as part of energy reform. Similarly, he during the debates expressed that, given his druthers, he'd prefer a mandate on health care like Clinton, but that the reality was that dropping the mandate made it easier to pass something.

I think that approach is key - he may be one of the more liberal candidates the Democrats have put up in recent memory, but he's also results oriented in a key way. I think that pragmatism is very important.

____________________

Bigmike:

OK, so I didn't recall a few dates correctly. Doesn't matter. The point is, he isn't ready for the job. Bring him back in 8 or 12 years and then he may have enough experience that I will listen to what he has to say. HC was right about the 3 AM phone call.

BTW, I don't watch TV except football and don't listen to talk radio. Too busy working for that. But you can't miss these guys in election season, they will find a way to get their message out. And I know all I need to. Obama is no more qualified than Ron Paul or any of the various other light weights who ran on both sides. The job is too big for him.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - I'm curious what defines readiness for you. As I said, I can't imagine what "readiness" for the Presidency would be. I can't imagine a person who is outright ready for the 3am phone call. (Speaking of which, Jesus, I'd better get to bed before then)

A global crisis isn't something there's preparation for. There's ability to handle it. Either you have it or you don't. And you never really know if someone is going to have it. Bush didn't. His father did. Reagan did. Carter didn't.

Does Obama? I suspect he does. I'm actually mildly less sure about McCain - his history of temper and some details of his military record make me think that he has impressive tenacity and determination, but not necessarily the composure and clarity that I associate with crisis decision making. (I think, actually, he's a fantastic legislator. The Senate is absolutely the right place for McCain. It's probably the wrong place for Obama - his approach is, ironically, a more executive or judicial approach.)

Obama, I think, does. I could be wrong. It's not something you can really know in advance. I was surprised by how much composure Clinton did have, and how little GWB did.

But I don't think it's experience. I think it's something else. Something more innate.

I mean, on a basic level, I don't think anybody in the world was "prepared" for 9/11. But I do think that if it happened again, I would feel better with someone who handles himself like Obama does as President than someone who handles himself like McCain does.

____________________

Bigmike:

I can't buy pragmatist and liberal in the same package. Especially with the dems having both houses of congress.

If you get enough party support to win the nomination, you owe lots of favors to the extremist. That goes for BOTH parties. We are talking about a Hillary overhaul of health care whether Obama admits it or not.

Been fun but it is way past my bed time.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - I think there are enough conservative Democrats and enough filibuster strength in the Senate to make Obama have plenty of compromises ahead. And I think it's notable how much of the left Obama is not beholden to - the fact of the matter is, much of the most classical liberal establishment backed Hillary initially, leaving Obama to triangulate a coalition that was more broad based. He's also been a very self-sufficient candidate, which helps a lot with his independence, and in this area, I think his newness helps as well - he hasn't incurred as many debts as someone who has been there a while.

I cannot imagine Obama's health care plan becoming more liberal in Congress. Without the Democrats having a veto-proof Senate, it's going to become more centrist.


____________________

Bigmike:

You are right that there is nothing that prepares someone for being President. It is OJT all the way.

I am not sure that McCain has the perfect temperment either. But I am even less sure that Obama has the depth of experience.

And you absolutely did not score with the 9/11 comment. As one of a handfull who voted against the war, it paints him as a pacifist. I hate to see war, it is an ugly thing. But I hate even less to not defend ourselves when the need arises. That is the picture he paints.

I know, he was for the Afghanistan war but not Iraq. But his biggest claim to fame is that he voted against a war that 90 some other senators voted for. Sure smells pacifist.

This time, really, good night.

____________________

Snowspinner:

To expand my observation about Obama's health care plan and the Senate, under the current Senate, his problems would be these: Joe Lieberman, Robert Byrd, Ken Salazar, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson. Probably a few others. He'd need to get a plan moderate enough for their approval. On top of that, to break a filibuster, he'd, under the current Senate, need 9 Republicans - so he'd have to win over Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Hagel, Gregg, Specter... and then three more.

It'll be easier under the next Congress, but it's still an uphill fight that requires moderate Republican support.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - I have very, very mixed feelings about Iraq. I supported it at the time, and the subsequent revelations about the utter lies that were presented as intelligence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were one of the most shocking and dismaying things I have seen come out of a shocking and dismaying administration.

I think Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. I think under a better commander in chief, it would have worked better, but I also think a better commander in chief wouldn't have lied to get the war started, so that's kind of a wash for me.

In any case, as it turns out, Obama was right on that war. He's also right on Afghanistan, and he's right about getting out of Iraq - complete with an understanding that we can't just cut and run. (Something a lot of the left misses. "Bring the troops home" is an utterly moronic approach.)

The one thing he was wrong on was the surge. But then, McCain's record on the surge is touch and go as well.

I see no broader evidence of him being a pacifist.

OK. I'm off to bed now too.

____________________

boomshak:

Can you handle the TRUTH about Barack Obama? If I could PROVE to you that he is a lair, would you want to know or prefer to keep your heads in the sand? You want to know every detail and nuance of Sarah Palin's life, do you want the same of Obama?

Don't read this article if you don;t want your faith in Obama shaken:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-turn-down-a-wall-street-career

____________________

boomshak:

No wonder the MSM refuses to dig into Obama's past. They already have and didn't like what they found.

Obama supporters better pray that artcile doesn't make it's way onto Drudge or it will go viral and the MSM won't be able to sweep it aside.

Will the MSM who feels it necessary to learn the "truth" about every aspect of Sarah Palin's life care about this?

____________________

boomshak:

I'm just curious. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, the deficit has doubled, foreclosures have exploded, gas prices have doubled, unemployment has surged and we are teetering on the brink of recession.

They have been in power for 2 years.

And yet, they are blameless? It is all Bush's fault?

So if things had gone really well since Democrats took office, they would be able to take none of the credit? It would all be due to Bush's great policies?

The hypocrisy in the MSM nauseates me.

How can you run a democracy when the whole MSM is in the pocket of one party?

____________________

slinky:

Sometimes phone calls are more informative than guests. Jennifer Brunner (D), Secretary of State of Ohio, and Beth Chapman (R) Secretary of State of Alabama, were on CSPAN this morning. It became clear, from callers, that the McC campaign is involved in widespread vote challenges, and circulating absentee ballot applications.

However, it seems that the Pew Charitable Trusts! have come in and tried to remediate many of the problems seen in 2004.

It is a real embarrassment that a non-profit needs to come in to teach our state governments how to conduct a vote.

But, it actually appears that there are some improvements, and that there will be a better vote this time.

We still can't rule out irregularities determining an election in this country, but,
we are on a road toward better procedures.

____________________

slinky:

The ideological battle I see raging here overnight really boils down to what kind of vision you have for the future of America.

If you believe in the future of Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower (to a lesser extent), Reagan and the Bushes, you will be arguing that everything is fine; Guantanamo is fine, our voting system is fine; the financial system is fine, the fact that the FTC doesn't enforce antitrust is fine; the repeal of the equal time provisions of the FCC act is fine; everything's fine.

If you are a person who reveled in the changes that saved the nation from monopoly and made food and drugs safer (Teddy Roosevelt), saved the country from dark depression through priming the pump (FDR; yes, I know the monetarist theory and the WWII theory), who saw a New Frontier (Kennedy), brought us to space, fought social injustice, and tried to make markets fair and free, then, there is no question who you should be voting for.

This ideological argument will not be solved here. It will not even be solved! But, for a time, America might get some leadership that takes responsibility for the mess on the front page: And, if so, it won't be the Repubs., because I know them. And, they don't take responsibility for anything.

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

As I've said, you would have much more credibility if you wouldn't post links to ultra-right wing and Murdock-owned websites. Your paranoia about the MSM is really astounding. Instead of trying to distract everybody with this nonsense about Obama, why don't you read some recent history. You'll find that after the Republicans (including Phil Graham) took control of Congress when Bush was President, they un-did many of the post-Depression regulations that protected the public from the kinds of abuses that we're seeing today. Their policies regarding free markets and deregulation are directly responsible for what's happening today. I was in the mortgage industry a few years ago, so I know what I'm talking about.

As one analyst has already said, this is the financial equivilent of Russia invading Georgia. Do you think this is going to help someone who's already admitted on camera that he doesn't know much about the economy? I don't think so. All you guys can do is try to distract us from the fact that you've run our great country into the ground. Enough! Get ready for an Obama Administration. It's coming.

____________________

boomshak:

Napolean,

Are you saying the claims made in the article about Obama embelishing his resume are false?

Like all liberals, instead of discussing the claims in the article, you say it is from a right-wing blog and therefore dismiss it. You guys never learn any new tricks.

Let me ask you this. What if they are true? Would it change your mind about Obama knowing that he told blatant lies?

____________________

vmval1:

Do you guys sleep at all?? Or have day jobs??

____________________

Napoleon Complex:

@boomshak:

You are the guys who never learn any new tricks. You're running the same kind of campaign that gave us GWB, whom you sold as a great guy to have a beer with. The country is going down the tubes and all you want to talk about is petty crap from some conservative website. The point is John McCain has sold his soul to the people who have caused this crisis. His top economic advisor was/is Phil Graham, who was one of the chief architects of the policies that created this mess. If anything, the MSM has been negligent in reporting these kinds of things.

____________________

thoughtful:

Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain attracting 49% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 47%
a lot of soft voters in the above polling!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

____________________

boomshak:

I am the first to admit, that John McCain's attack ads on Barack Obama rate a 10.0 on the suck scale.

Why reach with these questionable facts when you can go with incontrovertable evidence that is so damning of Obama?

I wish I could fire the whole lot. Pathetic. Your opponent is starving so instead of just letting his campaign die, you serve him up a 5 course meal?

God help us.

____________________

boomshak:

John McCain's recent ad campaign is the equivalent of throwing and intercept for a touchdown with one second left and all you needed to do was take a knee and it would be over.

I remember my reaction the first time I saw the "Sex-ed for Kindergartners" ad. My reaction was, "Oh my God, John you did NOT go there!"

Luckily we are two months out and these rediuclous ads can be forgotten by election day.

P.S., Yeah, Obama has run despicable lying ads as well, but I expect that from him.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boom

Every day the electorate is going to be reminded that McCain and Palin are liars.

Let McCain and Palin explain why they are not liars.

____________________

thoughtful:

@BOOM

Using Rasmussen's August 31st ID weightings the tracker today would read Obama 49 McCain 46!

It's over! Every day the American public is going tobe reminded that McCain supported completely Busn's economic policy. That Palintook better Pork subsidies than any other Governor. That McCain/Palin have nothing to offer except for lies and more misrepresentations.

____________________

boomshak:

thoughtful,

Neother of the McCain ads lied. They just took an interpretation of the facts in the most favorable light.

Barack Obama did, in fact, vote for sex ed for kindergartners and only a fool would believe theer was no connection between lipstick on a pig and Sarah Palin.

That being said, they were still dumb ads.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's campaign has issued one lie after another for which there is never any outrage from the MSM.

____________________

thoughtful:

@BOOM

The American People now know that lying and misrepresention is what Republican Candidates do when they run for national office. They have seen how John McCain has run his campaign.

Sarah Palin has been exposed as a Liar. Her whole act has been exposed. She's not a reformer unless reform is putting your high school buddies into cushy government jobs!

____________________

slinky:

She is quite simply, as one NYTimes columnist put it, not ready to be President.

Of course, he's a black NYTimes columnist, so you probably don't read him.

____________________

Dan1967:

Barack Obama's tax plan gives a tax break to any tax payer who makes below 250,000 per year. Barack Obama will give tax incentives to small business owners and big corporations to keep jobs here in our own country.

Barack Obama's tax plan is a big change from the tax plan of McCain and Bush. McCain and Bush give tax breaks only to the richest of Americans who make over 250,000 per year.

Under McCain's tax plan the middle class and the working poor who make below 250,000 per year bear the largest tax burden.

McCain and Palin are the exact same as Bush and Cheney in their economic policies and their policies on the war in Iraq.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work hard to help the middle class and the working poor. I don't want 4 more years of Bush and Cheney.

VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND LETS GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!

____________________

KipTin:

I just watched Obama's new ad against McCain called "Honor." I saw the same "talking point" being used by Obamanation on the Sunday talk shows. Supposedly, McCain's ads are "lies" and therefore dishonorable.

And here is a good one... one Obama follower even stated that although McCain's ads did not directly lie, the problem is that the ads implied things about Obama that were not true. (I think it was smitten Senator Claire McCaskill who has great trouble staying on message and who sounded very foolish next to Carly Fiorina who was speaking for McCain. Hard to believe ANYONE ever considered McCaskill could be a VP for Obama. But I digress.)

And his "honor" ad quotes such notable "journalists" as Joy Behr (The View... but elevated to status as "CBS News" for the ad.) How dishonest/misrepresentative is that? So this "honor" label... what does that say about Obama himself when he "lies" as often he does.

Really, dumb ad because most voters believe that ALL politicians lie. And in the polls McCain (by large margins) is thought to believe in what he is saying, while Obama is thought to be saying only what he thinks people want to hear.

____________________

slinky:

This is nonsense. I have not seen the ad. That's not the point. This is the first time I have ever seen, in American politics, one side call the other's 'liars' and have the charge stick.

McCain's camp is lying, constantly. Period.

(Just like Bush is lying, every day, during his Presidency).

____________________

Snowspinner:

KipTin - Given that The View is ABC, not CBS, I would guess that quote isn't from Behar. The relevant CBS news piece is probably http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/politics/animal/main4425331.shtml

____________________

slinky:

My attorney has explained to me that "puffing" is not lying.

Lying is telling an out and out untruth.

Only McCain and Bush are doing that.

I doubt Palin would actually do that, if she weren't directed to.

Although, we'll soon see whether she cooperates with Troopergate or not

[A bipartisan investigation; look it up!].

____________________

thoughtful:

@kipTin

The public perception of McCain is now changing rather rapidly. As you know Palin's numbers are now polarized as people find out what a hockey mom with lipstick is really like, though they are doing their best to hide her whilst they package for human consumption.

Time now for the GOP to start planning for 2012

____________________

KipTin:

Re: Taxes

Yet, the polls show that McCain is way ahead on tax issue.

____________________

slinky:

Because people don't yet understand the Bushonomics or McCainonmics.

They will.

____________________

boomshak:

Hmmm,

In last few minutes, McCain has surged back to a 6.5 lead on Intrade from being up just 2. Is there any news?

____________________

thoughtful:

Slinky

Both McCain and Palin lie and they are being called out on it.

Every thing now runs off of that. No credibility you can't rely on anytrhing they say, how can you if you get caught telling bare faced lies.

____________________

thoughtful:

$20K has done that. I shall be putting more money on Obama. the only poll todat so far is OHIO 4pts but inside margin and Ras narrowing to 2 points 49-47 McCain. On the Aug 31 IDs it would have been 49-46 to Obama.

Its all part of the the attempt by all Repubs to pretend BIG MO.

Liars

____________________

ritwingr:

If you believe in Marxism and misery spread equally, vote Obama.

If you believe in an eviscerated military, vote Obama.

If you believe in the Owellianly entitled "Fairness Doctrine, designed to silence the last voice of opposition to socialism in our country - talk radio - vote for Obama.

If you truly believe we can power our economy on windmills and solar panels, and that coal, oil and nuclear power are just palin icky, vote Obama.

If you are an adherent of the fanatical religion known as Globalwarmingism and immune to facts that disprove your faith, vote Obama.

If you drool and foam at the mouth with hatred for those who've made something of themseves because you haven't, and it makes you feel good to bring them down, vote Obama.

If you want to get rid of secret ballots for union certification and give union boss goons control over our economy, driving what's left of our industrial base overseas, vote Obama.

If you think the 2nd Amendment is a nuisance but see "pnumbras" and "emanations" in the Constitution that give a woman the right to kill her baby, vote Obama.

If you think the Weather Underground was just plain peachy, vote Obama.

If you DON'T think these things, but don't much care for liberty, either, vote McStain.

If, however, you believe in capitalism, liberty, the 2nd Amendment, and a limited, Constitutional government that does just a few things, none of which involve stealing from Peter to pay Paul...

VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

____________________

ritwingr:

OBAMA: Chump Change We Can Believe In!

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR