Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Daily Tracking (9/17-19)

Topics: PHome

National Daily Tracking Surveys
9/17-19/08

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
1,100 LV, 3%; Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 50, McCain 42

Diageo / Hotline
922, RV, 3.2% Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 45, McCain 44

Gallup
2,756 RV, 2%; Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 50, McCain 44

Rasmussen
3,000 LV, 2%; IVR
Obama 48, McCain 47

 

Comments
Justin:

::Change From Yesterday::
Obama reaches 50% in the Gallup Poll for the first time since the conventions ended.

DailyKos.com / Research 2000 (Weight: 35% Dem, 26% Rep, 30% Ind)
Obama +1, McCain 0

Diageo / Hotline (Weight: 41% Dem, 36% Rep, 19% Ind)
Obama 0, McCain 0

Gallup (Weight: Unknown*)
Obama +1, McCain 0

Rasmussen (Weight: 38.7% Dem, 33.6% Rep, 27.7% Ind)
Obama 0, McCain -1


Average Change
Obama +0.5, McCain -0.25

Average Swing
Obama 0.75


*If you have a source for Gallup's weighing measures or lack of weighing please let me know.

____________________

cmbat:

Can't wait for all of the righties to tell us why this is good for McBush.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Justin

What do you make the swing on the week? and do you factor in Rasmussen's change in ID weighting?

____________________

palinisbushwithlipstick:

Maybe the people are starting to realize if you elect two idiots like mccrap and paliar, then you might get the same results that we have seen from another idiot, GW Bush.

Maybe it is time to start electing smart people - you know, those elitists that graduate magna cum laude from Harvard law.

And not tools like mccain and palin - just go look up their grades/education. Yikes.

Obama and Biden have doctorates from great schools. Mccain and palin are lucky to even have an undergraduate degree.

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

Justin,

According to Nate, Gallup doesn't weight by Party ID, preferring to let the partisan chips fall where they may:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/lets-get-few-things-straight-party-id.html

The Gallup website shows candidate-support by political party, but it doesn't disclose the overall partisan breakdown of the sample.

____________________

ronnie:

I think the biggest concern for the McCain camp is there's nothing to indicate this trend will stop until the first debate...For any of these candidates to hit (or exceed) the 50% plateau at this stage of the game if very significant...We could be looking at a 6+ Obama lead by the 26th.

____________________

greg in charlotte:
____________________

boomshak:

LETS PLAY PIN-THE-TAIL-ON-THE-OUTLIER:

Rasmussen Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 3000 LV 48 47 Obama +1
Gallup Tracking 09/17 - 09/20 2796 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/17 - 09/20 915 RV 45 44 Obama +1
Battleground Tracking 09/11 - 09/18 800 LV 47 47 Tie

Gallup +6 and everyone else a statistical tie - FAIL.

____________________

Whitetower:

DailyKos is being consistent in oversampling the youth vote with 18-29 voters comprising 18% of the total turnout. This is ludicrous. They'll comprise 10%, tops.

I wonder what oversampling by nearly 100% a group that favors one candidate by 2-1 does to a poll's validity.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf
(see especially table 3 on page 3)

____________________

joecooper:

That's right, boomshak. Fail.

____________________

boomshak:

You can pretty much tie the resulst to the weighting.

Those that radically overweight Dems (Reps only 26% DailyKos - you wish!) get a 5-8 point lead for Obama. Those that peg it at 5 (like Rasmussen based upon 45,000 phone calls over 6 weeks) show it dead tied or Obama by 1.

Of the 4 major tracking polls (sorry if I don't even count DailyKos in that group), Rasmussen, Hotline, Battleground2000 and Gallup, only Gallup has the fat lead for Obama.

Here is my problem with Gallup. His a tracking poll with only a 2 MOE, and yet he has these WILD SWINGS of 10 to 15 points either way in a matter of days. Wasn't it a Gallup/USAToday Poll that had McCain +10?

I dunno, it seems to be a tracking poll is supposed to smooth out fluctuations, not exagerate them.

Also, this 10 point move to Obama nationally, according to Gallup, is NOT being confirmed by any state polling averages.

____________________

palinisbushwithlipstick:

oh look, it is the return of the republican trolls.


looks like they weren't happy enough with giving us 8 years of bush, they are now farting about mccrap and liar. Yes, it is called farting when you blow hot air around a bunch of feces.

You think anyone with a brain is going to vote for mcsame? Look at the mess republicans have got us into. I can actually say that a bunch of chimps would have been able to do a better job.

____________________

change:

@whitetower

Daily Kos picked up obama's bounce before gallup, so its not out there on its own,

____________________

joecooper:

Don't listen to them, boomshak.

____________________

boomshak:

@Whitetower:

DailyKos Poll is clearly designed for the consumption and comfort of it's moonbat contingent. What scares me is how close Gallup is to DailyKos and it is clear what a rediculous sample DailyKos is using.

From now on, unless you show me your crosstabs and they make sense, I'm not buyin your poll.

____________________

joecooper:

Yeah, you have to show boomshak your crosstabs.

____________________

Dross:

It's too soon to tell if McCain's drop is the result of the Wednesday's economic turmoil, Palin's falling favorability, post convention stabilization, or a combination of the above.

Some of the data has come in after the stock market recovered, so Obama's retaking of the lead may actually hold through to the debates.

The next few polls should prove quite interesting.

____________________

Tarp Lazer:

Greg, that is 3 posts in which you posted that stupid article that no one will "enjoy." Do you honestly think you are clever or something? How old are you 15? Get a life man.

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

@boom

"... it seems to be a tracking poll is supposed to smooth out fluctuations, not exaggerate them."

I seem to recall a different tone during what you called the game-changing, momentum-shifting seismic event known to rational observers as the Palin/convention bounce.

As for what could explain such a large shift in a single week, how about the, um, most serious financial crisis in eighty years and John McCain's inability to grasp it, let alone respond???

____________________

Ryan in MO:

@boomshak
FAIL

@whitetower
FAIL

@greg in charlotte
FAIL

____________________

serpounce:

Boomshak, Gallup uses RVs and doesn't weight by party idea, so I think it's a little harsh to say "FAIL," it's measuring something diffrent than Rasmussen.

Anyway Ras has moved a total of +4 towards Obama since McCain's post convention high. Each tracking poll concures with the direction things have been moving if not the magnitude of the movement and actual numbers.

____________________

ronnie:

The youth vote is expected to be enormous this year partly due to new voter registration....The Dems have made large gains in this area....Remember, Obama won the Iowa caucus thanks largely to a strong youth turnout...To simply perceive the youth vote to be merely "hype" is a huge mistake this year.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

annoying... isn't it?

____________________

boomshak:

I have noticed something odd about Gallup on his website where he announces his polling.

Right before the poll is about to swing back the other direction he says something like, "Well, Candidate A is ahead now, but this could easily swing back the other way and Candidate B could lead once again..."

Then without fail, the next day, the poll starts to swing back the other way. I swear he is adjusting his calling patterns or something. There is just no way a tracking poll of this size should have these wild swings in such short periods of time.

____________________

joecooper:

Gallup probably drinks lattes.

____________________

palinisbushwithlipstick:

boomshak -

Not all repubs are as stupid as you. Ever think that the number of repubs are dwindling due to the idiocy of the last 8 years? Even repubs can see how bad policies from bush et al have led to this crisis.

of course, there will always be idiots that have no comprehension of logic or facts and blame everything on homosexuals or some other irrational scapegoat.

And it looks like you prove that point.

____________________

joecooper:

Boomshak, he says we don't like homosexuals. You gonna put up with that?

____________________

ronnie:

I would like the Repubs to explain to me the 11-point turnaround in the Gallup over the last week....Did the Gallup all the sudden turn liberal and decide to oversample Democrats?...That argument would fall flatter than McCain's economic policy...I'll wait for an answer.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boom

Why don't we change the ID Weighting for Monday's Rasmussen tracking report and the 5 battleground states?

____________________

palinisbushwithlipstick:

Why don't you trolls get educated about polls and their biases. Start with Nate over at 538:


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html

____________________

TR in VA:

FOR ALL
to ask a NON partisan question for a second?

Its a FACT that the research 200/KOS ahem "poll" has 9% more More dems than Reps... which is far greater disparity than any other poll.

second their estimate of the 18-209 vote is absurdly high...

so why is their "poll" being given ANY cmsideration?

If someone runs a poll with 5% 18-29 voters ... which is absurdly too LOW... and 9% More republicans then Dems would not McCain have a 8%+ lead as well?

____________________

ronnie:

im still waiting on the repubs to give a logical explanation to my simple question.

____________________

joecooper:

Boomshak, he's waiting. Tell him, boomshak!

____________________

boomshak:

@serpounce:

I agree the race has tightened as Obama has been helped by the "anybody-but-the-guys-who-got-us-in-this-mess" vote (discounting, of course, that Dems have been running the show for 2 years and did nothing), but a 10 point swing to Obama - no.

Look at the state race averages. There is NO confirmation of this type of huge swing anywhere.

RCP Averages had the EV's at McCain/Palin 216, Obama/Biden 202 a week ago and they are still the exact same. During this same time Gallup shows a 10 point swing to Obama? No.

____________________

thoughtful:
____________________

Justin:

@thoughtful

I haven't been keeping track of anything other than the daily changes, but it looks like an 8 point swing to Obama from Gallup, 6 from Kos, and 4 from Rasmussen.

It's difficult to get a good idea of the swing from Hotline without taking party weights into account (which I do not do as I don't want to complicate things). Going solely by the Hotline results there has been a 1 point swing to McCain this week, though keep in mind that they have gone from a 9-point Dem advantage at the start of the week to a 5-point Dem advantage today which obviously skews things.

@ItsTheEconomyStupid

Thanks a lot. I wish he gave a source for that, but I trust him enough to believe it as it fits with their more erratic polling.

@Boomshak

Why leave out Kos but not Hotline? Because one supports your results and the other doesn't? The battleground poll is obviously not comparable as it begins on the 11th. If Gallup doesn't weigh and you don't agree with their results all you can do is blame it on bad luck with the sample. However, it would need to be a consistent trend of bad luck over the past week.

Rasmussen has a known house effect and I believe does not use cell phones. This could account for as much as 4 to 6 points.

____________________

TR in VA:

question for palinisbushwithlipstick

do you support liberal democratic activist comedian sandra Bernhard calling for Palin to be Ganged raped b/c she -- Berhard -- disagrees with her views?

Yeah I thought you might

____________________

joecooper:

Yeah! Boomshak, my man!

____________________

BOOMISANIDIOT:

I think boom is probably a fat, confederate flag waving, cheeto eating, pillow biting homophobe who gets his jollies off being racist behind a computer because he is mad his mom likes black guys.

____________________

John:

Erm, Whitetower the source you site puts the 18-29 year olds share of the electorate at 16% which is in line with the 2004 exit poll at 17%. Now you can argue whether the youth vote will go up or down this year, but to project a maximium of 10%, would indeed be ludicrious.

Boomshak: the gallup/USA today poll is completely seperate from the tracker. Since the Gallup tracker does not weigh for party-id it tends to be more volatile but it also removes the chance for party bais. The battleground tracker (at least did) has a party id of +3. If you want to include it (and I think you should include nearly all polls) then you should also include the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll

____________________

serpounce:

TR in VA,

I think the logic is that there is something to complain about with ever poll. Kos actually isn't the worst, that dubious distinction probably belongs to "Zogby interactive" an internet poll with a non-random sample.

The problem is where do you draw the line? Someone presumably thinks these polls use valid methodology or they wouldn't be done. This site reports on, and includes in its calculations almost everything. If you think a particular poll is invalid then don't consider it personally.

____________________

palinisbushwithlipstick:

It is pretty obvious now that John Mccain hates America. And he wants the terrorists to win. Why else would he choose a half-wit with no foreign policy experience as a running mate? The guy is 72 years old. He has to know he doesn't have too many sane years left. Why choose a mildly retarded hockey mom to possibly serve out the rest of his term?

The other option is that he is undergoing the early phase of some sort of dementia - where he thinks that Palin is his wife or something.

Someone should really take control of the republican ticket and replace them both with romney and huckabee. well, i guess that isn't much better, but it still is an improvement over the "Senile/Retarded '08" ticket they got now.

____________________

eugene:

LIKE I TOLD YOU GUYS 2 DAYS AGO,THE ONLY WAY MCCAIN CAN GET BACK IN THIS RACE WOULD BE IF A TERRIOST ATTACK HAPPENS,WELL MY FRIENDS IT WAS 2 TERRIOST ATTACKS THIS WEEK,WHICH AM REALLY BEGGINNG TO BELIEVE WAS PLANNED,THE GOP DO NOT WANT THE MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR ISSUES,BUT AGAIN THE MEDIA IS NOT COVERING THE TERRIOST ATTACK TODAY LIKE THE GOP WANTED,SO EXPECT SOMETHING BIG TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THE GOP CANNOT STAND TO SEE THE MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THIS ECONOMY,THEY WILL DO ANYTHING,YOU HERE ME ANYTHING!!TO CHANGE THE TOPIC,BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE OBAMA IS RISING IN THE POLLS BIGTIME BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY.

____________________

boomshak:

@ronnie:

"I would like the Repubs to explain to me the 11-point turnaround in the Gallup over the last week....Did the Gallup all the sudden turn liberal and decide to oversample Democrats?...That argument would fall flatter than McCain's economic policy...I'll wait for an answer."

A tracking poll that makes 10-15 point swings up and down ever week? C'mon. Before, when Obama was ahead, Gallup had him much further ahead than anyone else. Then he had McCain further ahead than anyone else. Now he overshoots on Obama again.

The man doesn't release his crosstabs. Anyone who does not do that is suspect.

____________________

ronnie:

I didn't consider the 5-point cushion McCain enjoyed for consecutive days to be a hoax...Things have drastically changed since then thanks in part to McCain's own poor judgement and use of words...Anybody questioning Obama's surge in the polls is in a state of denial.

____________________

joecooper:

Ha! Sandra Bernhard can make that joke because no one would ever gang rape her because she's so ugly. But she knows Sarah Palin really could get gang raped. Because SHE GLOWS!

____________________

Justin:

Eugene, if what you write is worth reading to anyone then the caps are not necessary. Please stop.

____________________

joecooper:

Gallup doesn't release his crosstabs, right, boomshak?

____________________

boomshak:

@serpounce:

"The problem is where do you draw the line?"

You draw the line at the pollster who releases his crosstabs and weights his polling based upon 45,000 calls done over the previous 6 weeks and updates it every week until the election.

____________________

metsmets:

@Whitetower
I went to the official voter tallies for 2004 and the 18-29% vote calculated as slightly over 12%. 11.6 million out of 96 million votes cast. I don't believe that the energy for Obama would result in an 18% turnout this time but I think you should accept 12% as the floor.

____________________

serpounce:

Boomshak,

I guess I reluctantly agree that the swing in Gallup's number's is pretty amazing both after the Republican convention and in the last week, and a bit hard to believe. Particularly when we didn't see similar movement in the other traking polls.

Some of it is because Gallup is using RVs, and the movement has been somewhat confirmed by a combindation of some of the non-tracking polls. It's also not surpising that the numbers in swing states (the only states that get enough polling to really tell week by week variation), as battleground states are generally less volitile due to voter information levels.

It's a big step to go from, "those are some odd numbers coming out of Gallup," to "Gallup is rigging the numbers by changing unreleased aspects of their methodology." Thats a huge charge against a pollster, and I'd need a lot more information before I believed it.

____________________

serpounce:

Well if you think that Rasmussen is the end-all-be-all of polling then why even bother coming to this site?

____________________

laguna_b:

I am very much for Obama. While I take marginal comfort from the current polls I still worry. BUT, if I were a republican I would be be scared $&&&less because I would see nothing for 5 weeks except downsides:
McCain has coronary (@ 72 running like crazy it happens)
Market takes a DEEP dive (more likely than a rally)
McCain continues to spew factual lies easy to contest and destroy his best attribute from the past - honor and "straight talk"
McCain blows up at debate and losses it.
Palin continues to be seen as incompetent instead othe NEW kid on the block.
Iraq blows up...

I have to say tht if an objective Republican looks at thing going forward there is more jeopardy than upside.

That being said, the prospect of those two incompetent liars running another 4 years of this country terrifies me.....

____________________

JFactor:

The claim that "Gallup is rigging the polls somehow" is just absolutely ludicrous, ignorant and stupid. It's very clear at this point that Obama leads by 1-4% at this point nationally, dependind on how the turnout will be. This boomshak guy is really messed up.
_______________________________________
http://www.internationalpoliticstoday.com

____________________

thoughtful:

Boom

Its +8 points with Gallup this week.

Its +4 + 2% with Rasmussen (+2 is for the ID wt adj)

+6% for R2K

____________________

joecooper:

You're all just jealous of boomshak because he gets all the attention. I guess your mothers didn't pay enough attention to you so that's why you're elitist latte drinkers. Boomshak and I know who the REAL Americans are, right, boomshak?

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"If someone runs a poll with 5% 18-29 voters ... which is absurdly too LOW... and 9% More republicans then Dems would not McCain have a 8%+ lead as well?"

You realize there are more Democrats than there are Republicans, right? Also, the youth vote is expected to be larger this time around than last time, right?

Perhaps DKos is overestimating those two factors, but they have to be taken into account, while many pollsters are lessening the demographic shift.

____________________

ronnie:

I find the Gallup numbers to be legit...We've seen a steady movement towards Obama for several days now (similiar to the movement we saw towards McCain a couple weeks ago)...If Obama truly has a 4-6 point advantage, its been backed up by other recent polling data to make the case.

____________________

brambster:

Let's be clear about something. Rasmussen PAC is the only pollster in these daily tracking polls that weights for party ID. All of the other pollsters that Justin shares numbers for are merely showing what the result was after weighting only for demographics.

Also, regarding the Research2000 poll, they might be a little high, but they are certainly closer than Rasmussen is right now. The Research2000 poll is also looking for what I believe to be the correct number of 18-24 year olds at 18%. In 2004 it was 16%, and before 1988 it was consistently above 20%. Obama does attract more younger voters, no doubt about it.

Note also that Obama typically has one of his worst days on Saturday in Gallup daily tracking due to the weekend effect...but that certainly didn't happen today as he has hit 50% again.

____________________

Dross:

Yeah, the youth vote may be the wild card in this election. As discussed before these land-line telephone polls may miss a large contingent of cell-phone-carrying youth voters.

It's now strongly established that Obama has a large lead in two demographics: younger voters (aged 18-19) and the educated (post graduate degrees). With an online and grassroots campaign of unprecedented sophistication, Obama may target his strongest supports more effectively than in any other election.

On McCain's side, he now has Palin to stir up the Republican base (evangelical and right/far right). Although this segment is easily susceptible to propaganda and pandering, latest polls suggest even they're starting to see some lack of validity in the VP candidate.

It seems to me that the onus will return back to McCain to convince the undecided. I also predict that with Palin's peak behind her, every non-GOP controlled appearance (i.e. debates, interviews) will be a liability to the party.

Can't wait for the debates.

____________________

John:

metsmets:
I don't know where you are getting your figures but over 120m people voted in 2004. According to 'CPS November voting', 20.125m voters between 18-29 cast their votes out of a total of 125.736m.
There is link to it further up the thread.

Boomshak:
While Gallup does not often release the exact number of Ddemocrats, republicans and independents in his samples, (he does not consider party-id a fixed demographic variable although if there is a shift he will draw attention to it), he does compile the previous week's polls and shows the breakdown in support between the canditates and a large range of demographic variable, such as gender, age, party-id, ideology, area etc.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

I gave up on boom a long time ago. I mean, we all have our biases, but his arguments defy reason, logic and credibility to the point of "pathetic."

Can anyone look up pollster history to see if Boom was attacking the gallup poll for not releasing crosstabs when mcCain jumped out to a big lead after the RNC?

____________________

ReprobateMind:

Too many cheerleaders here to be objective.

____________________

Justin:

"The fact that Gallup has had McCain up by 3 days in a row is very telling and should cause great concern for Obama."

Bookshak on September 10th

____________________

PooNani:

Wow Boomshak you've really outdone yourself this time.

You wrote:

LETS PLAY PIN-THE-TAIL-ON-THE-OUTLIER:

Rasmussen Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 3000 LV 48 47 Obama +1
Gallup Tracking 09/17 - 09/20 2796 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/17 - 09/20 915 RV 45 44 Obama +1
Battleground Tracking 09/11 - 09/18 800 LV 47 47 Tie

Gallup +6 and everyone else a statistical tie - FAIL.

Comically you add Battleground (with a 2 day old 7 day sample going back to the days when McCain was ahead or tied) and delete the R2K poll, and leave out the Quinnipiac (Obama +4) and CBS (Obama +5) national polls. Could you be any more disingenuous?

____________________

falcon79:

boom never fails to amuse me
keep up the good work boom
you're always good for a laugh

____________________

boomshak:

@serpounce:

"It's a big step to go from, "those are some odd numbers coming out of Gallup," to "Gallup is rigging the numbers by changing unreleased aspects of their methodology." Thats a huge charge against a pollster, and I'd need a lot more information before I believed it."

Well, theer has to be some explanation for it. To have a tracking poll with a 2 MOE that swings up and down 15 points week to week is an oxymoron.

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

@kerrchdavis

Boomshak's greatest hits:

"Gallup is the gold standard..."
- Sept. 9

"Rasmussen's model [which at the time showed a smaller McCain lead than other trackers] is wrong now. He is using out-of-date party affiliation numbers."
- Sept. 11

"I used to trust Rasmussen, but he is using OLD party affiliation numbers in his polling."
- Sept. 9

"The fact that Gallup has had McCain up by 3 days in a row is very telling and should cause great concern for Obama."
- Sept. 10

"RASMUSSEN IS A FRAUD! I'm sorry, but this just has to be said. Rasmussen uses a VERY suspect technique of using a moving average of the prior 3 months party affiliation to weight his polling sample for the current month."
- Sept. 10

____________________

KipTin:

Daily Kos/Research says it uses "likely voters" yet they better match up with Gallup "registered voters."

Whereas the Diego "registered" voters more closely matches Rasmussen "likely" voters.

Brambster... I would be interested in viewing the source that youth vote was consistently above 20% before 1988.

The last of the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) were 18-years old in 1982. Now they range in age from 44 to 62. Unless there was another birthing "boom" it makes sense that the proportional youth vote would reduce over the last two decades as the Baby Boomers grew older and as life expectancy increased.

____________________

thoughtful:

Gallup pols cell phone users

Rasmussen does not!

____________________

Justin:

"Here's why Rasmussen's numbers show a tie when everyone else shows McCain ahead:

All fo the polls coming out are showing a big surge towards Republican Party Affiliation. The USAToday/Gallup poll showed it at 48/47, or just a one point edge to Dems.

Rasmussen is using an old 7.5 point advantage to Democrats in his sample. Take away that 7.5 advantage and his numbers look just like Gallups.

His numbers DO NOT take into account the party identification surge which is clearly happening and Gallup's numbers do. I don't know if he is doing this on purpose (Rasmussen is a Democrat), but it is clearly bad polling on his part and he should know better."

-Boomshak on the 9th, but wait, it gets better...

"RASMUSSEN IS A FRAUD!

I'm sorry, but this just has to be said. Rasmussen uses a VERY suspect technique of using a moving average of the prior 3 months party affiliation to weight his polling sample for the current month.

Here is what he says on his website:

"September, the targets are 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated"

That means he is giving Democrats a 7.6 point advantage in his sample even though every other poll (including Gallup) is showing HUGE swings in party affiliation to the Republicans after the Sarah Palin pick.

I am sorry, but ignoring current dynamics in a race with 2 months to go and basing your model on 3 month old data is just so stupid as to be fraudulent.

If Obama announced tomorrow that he was the Son of Satan (i know, silly example) and party affiliation swung 30 points in favor of Republicans, Rasmussen would CONTINUE to give Democrats a 7.6 advantage in the polling sample.

The reason why Gallup shows a much larger edge for McCain is that their poll reflects current party affiliation trends whereas Rasmussens (for some bizarre reason) insists on ignoring these."

-Boomshak on the 10th

____________________

greg in charlotte:

My question is where are all of you libs gonna take your hate on Nov 5 after you say good bye to Barry

____________________

greg in charlotte:

I think me and boomshak will be standing here laughing our asses off while we cling to our god and guns

____________________

PooNani:

And in addition, to whitetower and all the other liars regarding the supposed oversampling


Whitetower writes:

DailyKos is being consistent in oversampling the youth vote with 18-29 voters comprising 18% of the total turnout. This is ludicrous. They'll comprise 10%, tops.

I wonder what oversampling by nearly 100% a group that favors one candidate by 2-1 does to a poll's validity.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf
(see especially table 3 on page 3)

Let's really look at the crosstabs for the R2K poll:

18-29: 18%
30-44: 33%
45-59: 27%
60+: 22%

The voting table on the page you cited had youth vote at 16% in 2004. The 2004 exit polls had the 18-29 vote at 17% (see here). Is it really at all out of the ordinary to place the 2008 estimates at 18%? With the considerable efforts for GOTV, i'd say 18 could possibly be a conservative percentage.

____________________

serpounce:

Oh my, that is pretty damning... In Boom's defense he does make some valid points, even if he only makes them in favor of McCain, and contradicts himself.

____________________

boomshak:

BOTTOM LINE:

This will come down to a 1-2 point race on election day.

Obama has to become the 4th Democratic President since the days of Abraham Lincoln (and the first in 30 years) to get more than 50% of the popular vote. He has to convince a center/right country to grant absolute power over all branches of goverment to liberals.

He has to convince America that he can do all the things he has never done and will not do all the things he has done. He has to pray that the stock market is not up 1500 points by election day and gas doesn't cost $3 a gallon. He has to pray no international crisis rears it's ugly head. He has to hope that Joe Biden doesn't make any more racist comments about 7-11 workers. He has to pray that 3rd quarter GPD doesnt come in at +3.

CONCLUSION:
As I have said before, a center/right country like America will NOT grant the keys to the city and unfettered power to liberals. They just won't do it. Obama has already lost.

McCain/Palin by 1-2%, 2004 Part Deux.

I have spoke. Write it down.

____________________

MNLatteLiberal:

@ Boomshack
Boom,
It's obvious: some leftist lib (probably George Soros) bought up Gallop while you weren't looking and now the whole country is polling to the left. C'mon, man, where is your head? Clearly Gallop is a pinko commie organization that lies about not weighing by party affiliation. They sit in their media vault and stuff ballots. I mean polls. I mean...

Next week if the financial markets calm a bit, the news of Sarah trying to suppress the independent investigation that was unanimously approved by a republican dominated state house/senate judicial committee, the news of her refusing to cooperate with the investigation despite her prev. assurances to do so, the failure to honor the subpoena - all that will bubble to the surface. It is curious to watch the McCain campaign execs squiggle and squirm and point their partisan digits of indignation on this. 'Cause it points right back to them Republicans. Clearly Alaska Republicans are not the same as in the rest of America. It's a wonder their governator was even picked, them being so leftist, elitist, pinko and commie.

Speaking of commies, gotta love Zapatero joining McCain's axis of evil this week. I wonder if Castro and esp. Chavez will make some room for him. Lieberman, where art thou, Lieberman? Why doest thou not whispereth into the withered McEar?

____________________

change:

greg in charlotte

You should be ashamed of yourself for voting for a guy that was part of the deregulation movement that lead us into this crisis, someone who voted with bush 90% of the time, someone who FLIP FLOPPED on torture to get his party's nomination, someone who has 100+ lobbyist working for his campaign! i hope god rids american of you evangelical extremists, once barack wins i hope he cracks down on you wacko's

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

@greg

How has this discussion been hateful? Nothing said here holds a candle to your Sept. 13 comment that "balack obama is not an american citien"

Come on, dude.

____________________

PooNani:

So in case of no argument you make grand declarative statements about what WILL happen.

That's cute!

____________________

thoughtful:

@Justin

That is really funny.

Boom you are just as consistent as John S McCain.

Let's Deregulate Health Care like we've done the Banks!

____________________

change:

@ greg

why are you conservatives hicks so dumb, our economy is plummeting, our schools are broke, our image abroad is shatterd, the working class is starving, and all you loons care about is abortion- filthy trailor trash preachers

____________________

greg in charlotte:

obamacrimes.com

____________________

boomshak:

@Justin:

Thank you so much for proving my point. I couldn't have said it better myself.

When I called Rasmussen a fraud, he was using 3 month old data in hIS weighting model which didn't reflect even his own current data. That was fraudulent. He has now fixed it, and I approve.

When I said Gallup was more accurate, it was because at that time he did release information sayig that the Party Affiliation Gap had shrunk to 3 points, which albeit was a bit low, was closer than the +9 points he is now (apparently) using.

CONCLUSION:
If you are trying to show that I am contradicting myself, you'll have to do better. The bottom line of my argument is simple, USE A FAIR SAMPLE AND WEIGHT IT PROPERLY.

____________________

boomshak:

Oops,

"I have spoke. Write it down."

"I have spoke(n). Write it down."

Lol, can't type worth sh*t.

____________________

greg in charlotte:

see you all on Nov 5, bring your tissues, you are all gonna be crying

____________________

boomshak:

McCain/Palin by 1 or 2 on Nov 4th. Book it.

What we should really be taking bets on is whether or not Barack Obama will become the MOST HATED MAN in the Democrat party on Nov 5th.

____________________

ronnie:

lol, sorry boom but your past comments contradicts your current position on some of the polls...it's not difficult to take a unbias position on polling data...policy i could understand somewhat

____________________

Evolve:

Or better yet use the trend lines from pollster or realclearpolitics or another service that tracks the trends from dozens of pollsters.

By the way they all seem to show a 5pt swing toward Obama. But its been a crazy month, I can't remember in my lifetime there being 4 major swing events in a 3 week period.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boomshak

You make it up as you go along!

Rasmussen underpolls AAs and he doesn't poll cell phones.

Lets pretend that there are less AAs and 18-30 voters out there!

____________________

Justin:

So a week and a half ago Rasmussen was a fraud, but today he is the gold standard. I think I understand. Thank you for setting me straight.

____________________

boomshak:

HERE'S ANOTHER THING:

This campaign is NOT about CHANGE. That is a smokescreen.

This election is about COMPETENCE.

COMPETENCE is the CHANGE America wants.

Whichever candidate can sell America that they will be THE MOST COMPETENT ADMINISTRATION will win.

____________________

ronnie:

greg, i honestly think mccain is a slight upgrade from mr. bush....however, if he's going to win this thing he has to a little more than talk about lipstick, britney, paris, etc.

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

@boomshack:

"Competence is the change America wants."

For once, I agree with you.

____________________

macsuk:

He wingnuts if you like McCain go to Intrade and you can get him cheap...

____________________

joecooper:

Ha! That's right, boomshak, and greg in charlotte, we'll be the ones laughing our asses off. Let's meet here on November 5th so we can laugh at all the libs. We're the REAL Americans. Not these regulating, big government, tax-and-spend, elitist, rights-reading, Muslim loving, laughing at gang-raping, non-torturing, elitist scum bags. When will they ever learn that Republicans rule?

And I couldn't have said it better, boomshak, that we just want competence, not change. We like the competence we have, not the change these latte-drinkers want. We're patriots!

Palin/McCain are mavericks. He is a hero and stands in front of flags. She is a hockey mom and glows on Hannity.

Palin/McCain '08!
Palin/Palin in '12!
Palin/Palin in '16!

____________________

John:

Boomshak:
I do not understand your point. Gallup does not use party weighting for his tracker. Studies in the past have shown the response rate to be the same between parties hence there is no need in terms of response bais to weigh voters by party. However it does tend to increase the volatility of the polls especially around events such as the conventions.

____________________

Evolve:

Do you Right wingers claim joecooper ... :)

____________________

PooNani:

He stands in front of flags!!!!!!

____________________

Dross:

Just wondering: Most pundits claim the first debate will decide the election. Right now Obama is favored to win, but not by much since the topic is foreign policy.

Kerry won the first debate. But he lost the election. However Kerry was trailing Bush 46 to 50 just before the debate and both candidates got only one point bump after.

Using extremely simple logic, if Obama heads into the first debate with a decent lead, he stands a good chance at winning the election.

But again Palin could be a wildcarsd once again here. She can go either way: successfully use her charm and bite to, on the surface, beat Biden (I'm sure she's pouring over her "VP for Dummies" guide as I write this), or be exposed as unqualified and crash and burn.

The Palin effect could come back and bite the GOP in the ass, lipstick and all. Or she could surprise everyone with a sharp and brilliantly rehearsed set of responses.

I think it's still Obama's election to lose. But by me means is he a shoe-in yet.

____________________

brambster:

@Justin

LOL. You mean that Boomshak is a hypocrite!

But seriously, what took you so long. Now ignore what people like this say since it is all propaganda anyway (and this one in particular knows next to nuttin').

____________________

ItsTheEconomyStupid:

@Dross

Interesting about Palin being the wild card. She might well benefit from what W. once called the soft bigotry of low expectations. Most analysts suspect (reasonably) that the McCain campaign won't let her near reporters because they fear she'll say something really stupid. By the time the debate rolls around, the bar will have been lowered to the point that she can exceed expectations by speaking in semi-coherent full sentences.

____________________

ReprobateMind:

Who is more likely to hang up on a pollster (not participate in a poll)?

Democrat
Green
Independent
Republican

I know if a pollster were to call me I would immediately hang up on them. Which party do I best identify with?

____________________

Dross:

*edit*: "But by NO means is he a shoe-in."

____________________

RussTC3:

Average = Obama + 4 points

Looking at the MOE, the average BEST result for Obama is + 9.1 points, while the average BEST result for McCain is + 1.1 points.

____________________

Tarp Lazer:

Greg - seriously, the obama crimes website again? Get a life man. Come up with something new at least.

I will bet you your 100K a year salary that if Obama wins you will be no where to be found after the election.

____________________

joecooper:

Here's how the debates will go:

McCain will wax Obama because McCain is an experienced senator who knows the way Washington works. Obama has ZERO experience.

Then Palin will wax Biden because she is a maverick who told the Washington elite where to stick their Bridge to Nowhere. And Biden is a lifelong Washington insider.

X factors?

McCain is a hero who stands in front of flags; Obama's wife is a ball-busting latte drinker.

McCain was a POW; Obama is a militant Muslim.

Palin glows; Biden doesn't glow.

Palin/McCain in '08!
Palin/Palin in '12!
Palin/Palin in '16!

____________________

change:

think about it as a game of poker, obama has way more outs

MI+PA+OH
CO+IA+NM
MI+PA+NM+VA
florida+ kerry states-NM-MI
VA+NC+kerry states- PA-NH


____________________

macsuk:

joecooper

Biden knows; Palin blows

____________________

@boomshack

"A tracking poll that makes 10-15 point swings up and down ever week?"

Huh?

You are seeing programs that are not in the TV Guide! The absolutely largest gap between candidates in the Gallup Daily was 9 points all the way back on July, 19. Since the rises for one candidate correlate closely with the falls for the other in the data, the maximum net movement is 4.5 points.

The only other trend of note is the slow shrinking of undecided voters favoring neither candidate thus far.

So what have you been smoking?

Most of these major shifts occur just in the places you would expect them: Obama's European trip, the first McCain attack ad, the Georgian invasion, Obama's vacation with his family, the DNC, and the Palin/RNC hoopla, and the banking crisis:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107674/Interactive-Graph-Follow-General-Election.aspx

____________________

WhiteChick_VA:

@ joecooper

I just had to ask, do you carry toilet paper with you to wipe boomshaks behind or do you just lick it? 'Right boomhak, right? Huh, boomshak, right? Libs drink lattes huh, boomshak, you guys are jealous because boomshak walks on water and doesn't drink lattes like Libs do'
You remind me of the little dog who runs around Spike on the Looney Toons cartoons.

@boomshak
Your constant vomitus when the polls don't go your way has made it where I just skip what you have to say anymore. It's a shame, because you seem to have a great handle on statistical nuances. However your lack of ethical analysis renders any future analyses from you as FAIL.

____________________

joecooper:

You gonna put up with that, boomshak?

____________________

WhiteChick_VA:

omg hahaha

____________________

RS:

@change:
You use logic and math. Sorry, those FAIL before God's Will!!!

/snark

I also find it hilarious that people fault Gallup for not providing cross-tabs and say Gallup isn't reliable, but then smack around dkos/R2K - even though dkos/R2K gives the cross-tabs.
Guess what's common between these two polls today?

Yeah. Anyway, as I have always said - national polls don't matter, only state polls do. Battleground states are tight, and next week we'll see how this week's economic news has affected them.

By the way, to all: using "rape" and abusive language gets you nowhere.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@whitechick, justin, itstheeconomy

like I've been saying, it's impossible to take him seriously anymore. His analysis and points of view are simply pathetic at this point.

Even when he compares polls to highlight gallup as an outlier, he picks and chooses whichever ones best suit his argument.

It's really become quite sad to watch. What's funny to me is how convinced he is that there is no way America will ever elect a lefty. Leaving aside the misstatement that Obama even needs 50% to win the election (he doesn't), why on earth would ANYONE be on pollster.com if NONE OF THE POLLS MATTERED ANYWAY because AMERICA DOES NOT AND WILL NOT elect a liberal.

As he said, mcCain has already won. Excellent Boom..then why are you here "examining" polls and going to such extremes to convince everyone that your are a nutjob? In fact, why haven't you already put your life savings on McCain? Shouldn't you have already sold the very computer you are typing on and taken off to Vegas to bet everything you have?

I honestly can't think of ANYONE on pollster that is, today, taken less seriously than boomshank.

____________________

Scott W:

Greg in Charlotte seems to revel in his own racism... all I can say is HOORAY for the confederate flag... yes some people will never vote for a black man. that seems to be your last great "white" hope at this point. you make the point that Obama has more obtacles to overcome than any other previous candidate - and America and the world will be better off for him overcoming these odds...

____________________

serpounce:

Prediction trolling is so dull, if people were really so sure that of the outcome they would go bet on it at intrade (or the like) rather than post trolling comments on a blog.

____________________

Scott W:

The concept of "low expectations" was a new bar that somehow the Rebublicans were able to limbo under the last two elections with Bush. But with Palin the Repugs are REALLY testing America... it seems like some kind of lab experiment... how stupid a candidate can we field and still win the White House... it is amazing that 40% of America will play that game every 4 years, but that percent is decreasing every year. 2008 is the year when the tide turns to the youth who have their eyes open for teh first time... Gen Y will save us, while Gen X stuck their heads in teh sand seeking personal wealth. There is hope for America, and I see it in the eyes our our newest voters.

____________________

Snowspinner:

boomshak - I thought Gallup was good back when it was the only poll propping up McCain's bounce.

Also, I don't think you can count a battleground tracking poll as doing the same thing as the national trackers. How about we factor in the Research 2000 tracker instead?

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

No, actually, I can't think of anyone with whom every liberal in this forum is more obsessed than Boomshak.

That's because I refuse to drink the liberal Koolaid and actually believe a man who has never achieved anything of note in his entire politcal career can somehow change the world just because we make him POTUS.

It's like taking an ineffective middle manager and saying that if only he was the CEO, he could make the company great.

It's like taking a 3rd string QB that has never set a single record in 10 seasons and making him the starter in the SuperBowl just because he says he knows some cool new plays.

It's like giving the most ineffective Congress in history with a 9% approval rating absolute power as a reward for their incompetence and expecting them to suddenly do a great job.

Other than running for POTUS, name one thing Barack Obama is famous for? Name one time he stood up against the corrupt establishment in Chicago? Name one major bill he wrote. Name one major reform he spearheaded?

If experience was a credit score, Barack Obama couldn't buy a '72 Pinto.

He says "Change We Can Believe In" because it takes a lot of faith to believe a man who has never changed anything can suddenly change everything if we will only make him the most powerful man on earth.

THIS is the madness that grips you. THIS is the madness you believe in.

Look at your own primaries. Obama got SLAUGHTERED down the home stretch. Why? Because when it comes time to actually pull the lever in the election booth, America chooses substance over style every time.

This is why we have resumes and credit scores and police records. The past is prologue. What you have done indicates what you will do. Obama tells us to believe he can do what he has never done and that he won't do all the things he has and you fools buy it.

McCain/Palin by 2, come Nov 4th, mark it down.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@boomshak

I must apologize boom. I can see you wrote a very long comment but I didn't bother reading it.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

Most of it was above your pay grade so I doubt you missed anything.

____________________

boomshak:

I especially liked this line:

"If experience was a credit score, Barack Obama couldn't buy a '72 Pinto."

That's a classic :)

____________________

boomshak:

Or how about this:

"If experience was a credit score, Obama picked Joe Biden because he needed a co-signer."

Zoom!

____________________

change:


boomshak

you know mccain was raped by nips while he was in prison camps, he lost his manhood. do u want a president who has been handled by bubba? and his wife looks like the cryptkeeper, and his daughter suffers from excessive fat. thats not change!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@boomshak

what did you say? I missed that last one too.

____________________

boomshak:

@change:

Glad to see we can count on you to keep the dialogue at a high level :)

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ change

lol! Don't forget the part about him leaving his crippled wife, calling his current wife a c*nt, insulting children, joking about bombing Iran, being damn near the stupidest person in his class and crashing all the time because he was a pathetic pilot.

____________________

Bigmike:

I am amazed the Dems want to keep running against Bush. He is 2-0 against you guys. I would call that UNDEFEATED.

If you want to get excited about the PV beauty pagent, go ahead. You may noitice that has NOT translated into EV's. Who really cares how many votes Obama wins by in NY or CA.

When McCain was up, there were a lot of comments here about firming the base and picking up support in solid red states. Why have there been no similar comments about Obama?

____________________

boomshak:

@WhiteChick_VA:

Actually, it's quite simple. I just don't trust polls that use a bad sample.

Rasmussen has had McCain losing 4 points in the last week. You haven't heard me complaining about that or saying it was a bad poll, have you? Nope, because I know he is using a fair sample and weighting and I think he is probably spot on.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - I'd say 1-1, but really, this time we've decided not to nominate a walking corpse. I think it's a good strategy.

Statistically, a broad popular vote winner also wins the election. The probability of winning the election while losing the popular vote falls off dramatically at about a 2% loss.

And for what it's worth, I never bought the whole "firm up support in the red states" argument. It looked like, during his bounce, McCain firmed up plenty of support in Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bigmike

With a 27% approval rating, I think you call that OWNED.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

____________________

Snowspinner:

Do we know if Research2000 weights party identification, or just reports it? (i.e. are they norming for party identification, or just telling us what identification figures they're getting. In which case it seems no more or less invalid than any other non-party adjusting poll, and I find both totally valid methodologies.)

____________________

Evolve:

@Bigmike:

It looks to me like Obama is trying to gain ground in states he doesn't already control. No need to firm up states you feel your gonna win, could be a hisk if he loses one.

Battlestates breakdown:

2004 RED Battleground States
Colorado 04-Bush 4.7 todays polls avg Obama 2.5, thats 7.2 pts
Virgina 04-8.2 todays polls avg McCann 2.3, thats 5.9 pts
New Mexico 04-Bush .7 todays polls avg Obama 4.3, thats 5.0pts
Indiana 04-Bush 20.7 todays polls avg McCann 2.3, thats 18.4pts
Ohio 04-Bush 2.1 todays polls avg McCann 1.2, thats .9pts
Nevada 04-Bush 2.6 todays polls avg McCann 1.0, thats 1.6pts
Florida 04-Bush 5.0 todays polls avg McCann 4.5, thats .5pts
Missouri 04-Bush 7.2 todays polls avg McCann 6.6, thats .6pts
North Carolina 04-Bush 12.4 todays polls avg McCann 9.0, thats 3.4
Montana 04-Bush 20.5 todays polls avg McCann 9.0, thats 11.5pts
Results : Obama gains in every state with a avgs gain of 5.5 per state and he's flipped 2 states from red to blue CO NM


2004 Blue Battleground States
Michigan 04-Kerry 3.4 todays polls avg Obama 3.3, thats -.1
Pennyslvaina 04-Kerry 2.5 todays polls avg Obama 2.0, thats -.5pts
Minnesota 04-Kerry 3.5 todays polls avg Obama 1.3, thats -2.2pts
Wisconsin 04-Kerry .4 todays polls avg Obama 2.3, thats 1.9pts
New Hampshire 04-Kerry 1.3 todays polls avg Obama 3.3, thats 2.0pts
Washington 04-Kerry 8.2 todays polls avg Obama 4.2, thats -4.0pts
Oregon 04-Kerry 4.2 todays polls avg Obama 6.7, thats 2.5pts
New Jersey 04-Kerry 6.7 todays polls avg Obama 6.5, thats -.2
Results: mixed gains and losses witha a net loss of -.1 per state, No flipped states at this time.

This data seems to appear to show very little overall change in the blue states and a 5.55 avg gain in red states. 50 state assult seems to have some affect.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@snowspinner

I'm not sure it states it. You bring up a good point though.

____________________

Bigmike:

Oh, where to start.

1-1. You guys are never going to get over 2000, are you? Nixon got screwed worse in 1960, in Chicago of all places, but was man enough to put the country ahead of himself. We will never be able to say that about Al Gore, will we?

Broad popular vote winner? Even if the Dems win in Nov, it won't be by much in the popular vote. If you beat 51% it will be your best showing since 1964. Figure the odds!

27% approval rating. That only makes his numbers 3 times better than the Dem controlled Congress. And we all know if he was running again, which you may want to know he's not, don't you think Dubya, Cheney, and Rove would have those numbers better. History says yes.

If he was running again, you think he can't beat Kerry-light. Kerry was a war hero, served longer in the Senate, had lots more experience. Rove would make them look silly.

____________________

boomshak:

Guys, I keep comparing this election to 2004 for a reason.

Face it, George Bush was a HORRIBLE campaigner in 2004. We had an already unpopular war with growing dissatisfaction towards the Republican Party in general. Nobody liked Dick Cheney.

Do you remember Bush in the debates? It was TRAGIC. I was too embarrassed to even watch he was so bad.

And yet he won, by almost 4 million votes I believe.

Kerry had EVERYTHING going for him and Bush won. Obama, by all rights, should be ahead by 20 points right now. He has every conceivable advantage and yet, according to RCP, it is statistically tied.

Sure the Dems took over Congress in 2006, but name one Congressman who took over a Republican seat by running as a liberal? Name one.

____________________

atreides:

I can hardly name a president that had a big time rep when he was elected. George Washington was Commanding General during the revolutionary war. Then we got John Adams, a behind the scenes guy and Jefferson who was pretty much an intellectual. For the most part the military men that ascended to POTUS wer busts until Eisenhower (Harris, Grant, etc). Lincoln was almost unknown to the nation and had little experience in Congress before he became President. There were whole string of republican presidents at the end of the 19th century who picked by party bosses to be POTUS. Teddy Roosevelt came from a rich family but he was hardly a household name when he was force on McKinley. Kennedy was virtually unknown Senator from Mass and so was Nixon from Ca before they came on the national scene as POTUS and VP. So the point is that there have been many bright energetic men that have come out of nowhere to become POTUS and end up doing a good job. There is only one difference between them and Obama and you highlight that with your reference to his purported "credit score".

____________________

boomshak:

You know, you just gotta love LIBERAL BIAS IN NEWS HEADLINES:

Here's the headline:
"Poll: Ohio up for grabs"

Here's the story:
"In the battle for Ohio’s 20 electoral votes, Republican presidential nominee John McCain holds a 48-42 percent lead over Democratic opponent Barack Obama — but with lots of time left in a volatile race, according to the first Ohio Newspaper Poll."

A 6 point lead is "up for grabs"?

ROFLMAO!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bigmike

lol, you are a funny funny guy. If Bush was running for a third term today, he wouldn't be able to beat a dead barn animal let alone a senator.

____________________

Evolve:

I would agree with ya 2006, 2006 was about the war. But this year it will be about socialist type policys and it looks like the Rep. partys gonna take a bath. People today are more interested in healthcare, retirement, union jobs, sending thier kids to college, reasonable regulation .... liberal or not are strong Dem. issues. Thier tired of the your on your own politics.

____________________

change:

@ big mike

i wouldn't give to much crediblity to the average of polls, i think we need to look at polls after the financial crisis

____________________

Bigmike:

@kerrchdavis

lol back to you. Sounds just like what you guys were saying in 04.

None of that matters, It's McCain, not Bush.

____________________

zotz:

Kerry was a great debater but a poor campaigner. He was SUCCESSFULLY portrayed as a flip-flopper. Bush's ratings were much higher than now and the economy was better.

Obama's problem was and is RACE! Read the politico article. They say around 6% will not vote for Obama mainly for that reason.

____________________

Evolve:

The new polls that have been coming out this week tell the same story, even worse if ya buy the SC, GA, IN polls that have trended 10 pts each toward Obama after the economic crisis this week

____________________

boomshak:

@zotz,

But those who will NOT vote for Obama because of race is more than offset by those who will vote for him just BECAUSE he is black.

____________________

boomshak:

@Evolve:

The RCP EV Projections haven't changed in a week.

____________________

boskop:

obama is using the economy to scare us just like bush used security issues to scare us last go round.

i see no difference in his elevating fear mongering to gain an election. if you think this is 'cool' think again.

i didnt like it then and i dont like it now.

____________________

Bigmike:

Evolve

Issues at last! People have only seen Obama and McCain give scripted speeches, with a few exceptions. Forget primary debates. Only party regulars and insomniacs watch those. The Presidential debates are where they will get to know the candidates.

They might be tired of Rep policies. But are they willing to go out on a limb for Dem policies? I have my doubts.

Remember the Dems in years past wanted better housing for the less fortunate. What did we get? Projects. What is the health care equivalent of the projects? The right answer is I never want to know.

____________________

John:

@zotz
Perhaps, but the voters didn't seem particularly timid about expressing their views and hence most will already be accounted for in the polls.

@Boomshak
Often when the headline doesn't really match the poll's findings it is because the author(s) of the poll do not trust their findings. This applies to republican leaning pollsters as well. Every pollster occasional gets outliers. In this case, if you look at the cross-tabs, it shows the poll with +2.5R party-id advantage. Nearly all other pollsters, in Ohio, either find or project about a +4-6D advantage.

____________________

Evolve:

@bigmike

That is correct, its just a sign ... means McCann gonna have to spend some $$ in these states that he wasn't planning on .... all in all he will hold these states (maybe not IN, the trend has been going Obama's way). Plus its one of the rust states, strong union push ... As a union electrician I know that the rust are very organized and pro Obama. It seem to be having some success because everyone of them is either yellow or blue.

____________________

Evolve:

@bigmike

Healthcare, this is a great issue. More and more Rep. are leaning this way also, not because they like it but because they see that US companys that have to shell out 10-15% of their buget on healthcare are becoming less and less competive in the global market. Even the big three auto makers now support national healthcare. Its come down to 2 choices lately #1 support national healthcare, or #2 move your plants oversees where its more competive....

____________________

Bigmike:

Evolve

I don't think most of the country is worried much about union jobs. No disrespect intended, it just is not a big issue in most places.

Since when is it a surprise that unions favor Dems? A big push - does that mean he is gonna get 90% of the union vote instead of "just" 85? I was in a union once years ago. If there was anyone who leaned the Rep way, they never said it out loud. Just in the voting booth.

No way it is good news for Obama that the rust states are close. Obama can't afford to lose MI or PA. Same with McCain in OH and IN.

To me, bottom line here is these polls don't mean a lot at this point. State numbers are what matters. After 1-2 debates, lets see what the EV's look like.

____________________

Evolve:

@bigmike

Agreeded I do belive the debate's will be inportant, more so for McCann. If he can get ppl to believe that he's pro regulation, and environment and green energy he has a good shot.

Also just a point unions have a strong christain component and have had there vote split pretty evenly the last 20yrs or so, that's one of the main reason they have lost so much power, neither party respected them because they knew the rank and files vote was split.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Bigmike - To be fair, Gore has been fine on that front. He has never, to my knowledge, claimed that he was rightfully President.

In practice, I think 2000 was closer than the margin of error of voting. But my point is, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and the electoral college was too close to call by normal means. In 2004, he won by 3,000,000 popular votes, or 120,000 Ohio votes, depending on which you prefer to count.

Suggesting that Bush decisively won either election is deeply revisionist. Both were razor close elections that could have been flipped by a tiny and apolitical thing. (Traffic jams, weather, etc)

As for approval, Congressional approval ratings always suck. I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any actual Congressman or Congresswoman pulling 9% approval ratings, and it's clear from party registrations that it does not translate directly into a Democrat approval rating at all. Which makes the Congressional disapproval more of a "general state of the nation" disapproval than a disapproval of any actual group or person.

Bush, on the other hand, is well enough known as an individual that 27% approval is pretty clearly an indictment of him.

____________________

Bigmike:

Ought to be a fun 6 weeks.

Thanks Evolve

Gotta go. Family time!

____________________

Another Mike:

DailyKos is being consistent in oversampling the youth vote with 18-29 voters comprising 18% of the total turnout. This is ludicrous. They'll comprise 10%, tops.

They were 17% of the electorate in 2004 per CNN exit polls. Given the enthusiasm among younger voters for Obama and the undisputed vast new registrations, 18% seems like a conservative estimate.

____________________

Another Mike:

second their estimate of the 18-209 vote is absurdly high...

Where's your evidence?

____________________

Obama08:

I think its funny how people like Boomshak are so full of themselves that they think that they are actually making a difference in the outcome of this election when all they are doing is commenting on some polling website. I mean get a life all you do is comment on this website 24/7. You should really find a lady friend, even though I doubt anybody could put up with your arrogance and self-important personality. You fail!

____________________

marctx:

Jimmy Kimmel said that 50% to 47% people polled that they would rather watch a football game with Obama than John McCain. But Gov. Palin had a 78% accuracy record of handicaping NFL games.

You got to love her.

____________________

boomshak:

@Obama08:

Lol, dude, I do this for kicks. I know it makes no difference in the campaign (and have said so on numerous occasions), but I like to argue politics.

I think maybe it's you who is taking it all too seriously.

____________________

Another Mike:

ROFLMAO. What a moron.

____________________

metsmets:

@Boomshak
We liberals have a deep, dark secret. Obama actually has a twenty percent lead in the national pools. However, we persuaded our friends at Gallup and Research2000 and a few others i.e. every pollster but Rasmussen, NOT to publish these astonishing results. They have been watering down the numbers so you Republicans won't be scared! Until November 4th.
These "internal polls" were why McCain panicked at MPLS and picked Pallin. If you had Ridge, you woudda had a shot at PA. "A Ridge to nowhere" according to your conservative base. LOL.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

Whitetower said...
"DailyKos is being consistent in oversampling the youth vote with 18-29 voters comprising 18% of the total turnout. This is ludicrous. They'll comprise 10%, tops."

Pew did some research on the 18-29 age group voting patterns from the 1992 to 2004 elections.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=17696

The results were (year/% of electorate):
1992 - 20.7%
1996 - 17.1%
2000 - 16.8%
2004 - 18.4%

That is a rough average of 18.25%.

Now tell me, based on the last four elections, that a vote by people aged 18-29 comprising 18% (the figure that the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll is using) of the total electorate is 80% too high.

In fact, I consider it a point or two low. When almost all polls show the vote youths will cast this year will go to Obama 20% or higher than to McCain, it you underestimate the youth vote, you tilt the results away from Obama.

____________________

boomshak:

THINK ABOUT THIS:

Let's say Obama does win. Let's say the Democrats keep both houses and appoint all kinds of liberal judges.

What the hell will the Democrat Party do when they don't have anyone to blame? For years they have been running on the "vote-for-us-because-we're-not-them" platform.

I am willing to bet that Obama would still be blaming Bush for everything that went to hell in his first term.

____________________

marctx:

Barack Obama shot a three pointer when he visited the troops in Iraq. But Gov. Palin scored the winning basket in the Alaska state basketball championship.

Go to love her.

____________________

boomshak:

The Democrats promised us the sun, the moon and the stars if we gave them power in 2006. What did we get?

The least effective Congress in the history of earth. A 9% approval rating.

Tell me why I should expect more from Obama?

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

boomshat:

And the Repigs have not blamed one thing at all on Clinton (now 7-2/3 years out of office) and Carter (now 27-2/3 years out of office)?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

____________________

metsmets:

@MikeinMaryland

I like your research. However 18 - 29 year olds have a very low level of voter participation. They may register but only slightly more than half vote. Maybe because they move more frequently? Older age groups especially seniors vote at much higher percentages.

When I checked Votes Cast for 2004 I found only 11% of the voting population was 18-29.

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak:

thanks for not replying to my refutation of your taxation point yesterday, despite the fact that you dropped back in to make a few rants. It's a pity that in real life, you can't always pick your battles. If you'd like to have another crack at explaining why your stance is not flawed and misleading, here's the post:

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

Go for it.

____________________

boskop:

@obama08

well, you are obviously reading those posts.
perhaps, you read as much as he writes but are a stealth visitor.

in which case, you are on as much but secretive.

let's get back to the topics at hand:

if the deficit balloons further, then borrowing becomes far more expensive. if it is harder to borrow then businesses fail and you lose your job and health insurance.

if obama wants to bail out your mortgage and give you health insurance he not only has to build out a new and enormous arm of the government but he has to find the money.

raising taxes on the five percent he's got left to raise it on has now shrunk since businesses have folded and thousands have been laid off.

so while the deficit has ballooned his available resources have inversely collapsed.

WHICH BRINGS US to sovereign wealth funds. in order for obama to reflate the country and save your home (though you didnt deserve it anyway if you couldnt afford it) he'll have to ask IRAN, RUSSIA AND CHINA, the Emirates, SAudis, etc to buy us.

They'll come in and buy our real estate, lend us money at high interest rates and manage our ports which they were supposed to do way back when.

SO now what we have is desperate globalism via a fire sale. we essentially beg them to bail us out or all the so called entitled citizens who thought they had the right to a house.

NOW let's take it one step further...

If they have been called in to help, then we are indebted to them. your job goes to them.
they have every reason and right to take it back with them over seas. why not??

the up side is when they own part of us they will feel less compelled to destroy us through terrorism and reckless management.

But we can hardly call the shots when we are so beholden. certainly obama cant as president. if they withdraw the funding we are doomed again.

WHat's the one thing we can do? It's the one thing that america has to counter balance the inevitable foreign bail out that looms especially when obama starts to spend the bucks like a cockeyed sailor.

OIL: We leverage off them politically if we have our own supply. And we leverage off them when we no longer dig a deeper deficit hole by buying it from them/

If obama really understands economics (which he doesnt despite all his advisers since he had to take time off and think) then he'd understand the urgency of CNG and LNG right now.

BUt he doesnt get it.

GAS now is your only way to save your jobs. that's it in a nutshell.

____________________

Pazienza:

(November 8 2004 Real Clear Politics)

WHICH POLLSTER WAS THE MOST ACCURATE?:

At the national level the answer to the question is pretty straightforward. Ed Goeas's GW-Battleground Vote Projection and Pew Research got it exactly right. Goeas's final Battleground projection was Bush 51.2, Kerry 47.8, Nader 0.5 and Pew's final allocation was 51-48-1.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_11_8_04_1018.html

FWIW the 2 most accurate 2004 polls presently show:

Pew (9/9-9/14) McCain 46 Obama 46

Battleground (9/11-9/18) McCain 47 Obama 47

____________________

change:

obama needs to be careful with PA and MI- a loss here and he can kiss the presidency goodbye. that is why im most focused on the polls from these areas. If Obama can win these two the road to 270 EV is made alot easier. What is unpredictable about this is how much of a role race will play.. there are rural democrats that may be hesitant to support their first AA nominee. If obama can win over rural democrats; he wins PA OH MI- remember in these states DEMS outnumber REPUBLICANS by significant numbers!

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

I did answer it completely. Go back and look, you missed it.

The part you are forgetting in your flawed analysis is that I will be paying 15.6% on my whole income and not just $97,500.

____________________

boskop:

@change

gimmeabreak!

the race thing is ovuh.
the sex thing is a bigger ding for mccain but from NOW and jealous yuppie women.

obama needs to carry wisconsin and he needs new jersey. he wont take wisconcin and he stands to lose PA or MI or both.

NJ is getting tighter as well/

depending on how well mccain can craft his retorts, obama will play the scare game just like bush did. he'll try and scare the pants out of us on the economy like bush scared us about terrorist attacks.

but the debates are looming. he doesnt do well without his teleprompter. this isnt a race thing it's a brain thing.

____________________

Evolve:

@Pazienza:

Well that was a waste of your time ... a sample of one poll doesn't even come close to who's most accurate. That's like picking one apple off a tree. I wouldn't mind seeing if anyone does have any historic data related to this issue thou

____________________

change:

@boksop- if you cant adress the facts in what im saying then please don't respond!

you have to use your brain; 84% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track- 63 percent thinks Mcsame will follow Bush policies (USA/GALLUP) Dems are winning seats in places unimaginable before, when you ask people if they would want a Democrat or Republican as a president they say Democrat by significant margins= so what else is it other than race?

on election night results from VA will come in first, and we will be able to see if rural Democrats will support Obama in these regions, maybe a sign of things to come

____________________

Evolve:

If Obama goes down race WILL have a significant roll in it. Here's a recent poll that about 40% white voters have some bias against blacks. The most interesting thing about it is where the Republicans are on this list.

Article :
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=AtR_Wy3peeIzvObUfHcYk2ayFz4D

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak:

No, no. You replied to my first post on the taxation issue. Then I refuted your refutation, proving that your assertions - that (1) you will be paying 15.6% on your entire income and (2) more than 1.4% of small businesses earn over $250,000 per year - were false. You have yet to respond to my second refutation. Instead, you made several posts about why you were anti-communist, why the polls were all wrong, and why Barack Obama's voting record shows he's not for change.

I post the link again. If you let the page load, it will automatically go to my post, which you have NOT replied to.

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

____________________

change:

@evolve

the good thing is that the article states that current polls are reflective of the racial bias. furthermore, a majority of those who harbor these bigoted views say they will vote for obama anyways meaning although race maybe a factor in most cases its not a decisive one. and people will normally give an excuse to not vote for obama rather then lying to pollsters

____________________

Pazienza:

Evolve:

Do you have data on how many blacks have a bias against whites. You would need to present this to get the full picture of how race will impact this election - especially since polls show blacks are supporting Obama in greatly higher percentages than whites are supporting McCain.

____________________

Evolve:

@change

This may be true, but when your in that booth and you have these tendency's who know what that individual ends up doing.

____________________

Evolve:

@Pazienza:

I'll look to see if I can find one. What I do know is that black support for the Dem. canadit is up about 5% from 85-90. With them being only about 10% of the population to really affect the outcome they'll need to have a 15-20% increase in turnout. ( Which they may get )

____________________

ronnie:

Since we are on the topic of economics, let me be the first to admit 'both' candidates plans are likely to increase the national debt by trillions...Obama's message on economic fairness can be debated on just like McCain's message, which is to essentially continue the failed policies they got us into this position in the first place.

After eight years of secrecy, distortions, and failed policy, I think the majority of people are looking at which candidate has the most honesty and intellectual capacity to make an effective President...Being in Washington for a quarter century doesn't mean you have the knowledge and skill to be an effective President...McCain has a very suspect record on many issues in the Senate...He's is running on the basis of being a so-called maverick and reformer (something his record doesn't depict).

Im an independent voting Obama because he has the intelligence and the temperment (among other things) to make sensible choices in office...He's already made his mark in law profession, state legislation, and the Senate...I encourage people to look beyond years in Washington and look at who has the most reasonable plan to bring about change.

____________________

boskop:

@change

your numbers are peculiar.

your projections even from those more peculiar.

change is a concept used by hitler, my congressman, and jesus christ.

the translation of 64% directly to obama is simplistic.

you underestimate the mentality of voters in this wonderful election. many, maybe upwards of 15% will not be definitive until they yank the lever.

you seem to know their hand. i put more in the vagaries of geo-politics and the economy.

you seem to know how that will play out.

i dont presume such bombast.

____________________

zen:

to Metsmets:

Vote by age from the result of 2004 election (CNN)
18-29 (17%), 30-44 (29%), 45-59 (30%), 60 and Older (24%)

Below is the link......
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

And remember, this time, youngsters are more engaged than 2004.

____________________

change:

@evolve

i respectively disagree. the reason i disagree with you is if obama had this problem with white voters getting the jitters in the voting both and telling pollsters otherwise how in God's name did he beat Hillary; a white politician who reminds them of the Good Clinton years of peace and prosperity!

____________________

change:

@ boskop


you sound like such a right wing wacko! i know deep inside obama's race is bothering you, he is the one that can fix the economy, end the war, inspire the younger generation in doing whats right, lead us to energy independence! We need Obama, he's practical kind-hearted and thoughtful! Mcsame is crazy wild and hot-headed

____________________

Evolve:

@change:

You may be correct, tho hillary at the beginning of this process had the highest negative approval rating of all the candidates, both Rep & Dem. .... she was very polarizing, but only time will tell

____________________

ronnie:

For a 72 year old man who's been in Washington for 26 years, McCain has the decision making of a reckless teenager...That's when good old fashioned intelligence comes into the picture.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

metsmets:

You didn't read my message correctly.

I did NOT say 'registration,' but rather quoted from Pew on actual VOTING of that age group.

To quote again:
"Pew did some research on the 18-29 age group voting patterns from the 1992 to 2004 elections.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=17696

The results were (year/% of electorate)"

In other words, the numbers quoted are an expression of the number of 18-29 year olds who went to the polls and actually voted as compared to the total of everyone (the 'electorate') who went to the polls and actually voted.

If the research paper had meant 'registration' or 'per cent of voting age population,' the word 'electorate' would not have been used, but rather 'registration' or 'per cent of voting age population.'

____________________

boskop:

@change

comments like yours are the reason so many have left his camp.

do you know what color my skin is girl?

do you think that voting en masse as a black man for a black man aint racist?

try thinking with your eyes shut.

and dont here calling me this or that because i use my brain and it doesnt turn polarizing tricks on me like yours does.

____________________

boskop:

@change

comments like yours are the reason so many have left his camp.

do you know what color my skin is girl?

do you think that voting en masse as a black man for a black man aint racist?

try thinking with your eyes shut.

and dont come here calling me this or that because i use my brain and it doesnt turn polarizing tricks on me like yours does.

____________________

ritwingr:

Boskop:

BINGO! The big secret is that Obama is, to put it simply, a moron. An ostensibly well educated moron, but clearly a moron.

Without a teleprompter or a script he's "uhhh.....errrr....uhhhhh." Then there are his incredible gaffes, any one of which would be replayed day after day ad infinitum if McStain had made them, or God forbid, Bush.

-He said there were 57 states.

-He didn't know the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans day (he talked about how so many of those we honor on Memorial Day were in the audience of one of his speeches - ROFLOL! "He sees DEAD PEOPLE!")

-He told a reporter that he visited Iraq to get to know the people he'd be working with as President for "the next 8 to 10 years." Oliver Stone, get the conspiracy machine cranked up! Barack's got a secret plan to change the Presidential terms to 5 years each!

-I think my favorite was when he said that Hillary kicked his butt in Kentucky becuase she was from "nearby" Arkansas, whereas he is from a state "in the middle." The dimwit apparently either didn't know or somehow forgot that his home state of Illinois BORDERS KENTUCKY! And that Arkansas certainly doesn't.


Barack Obama is the classic eductated idiot. He can parrot words in a speech, but forced to think for himself, he's an abject dullard with absolutely no accomplishments to speak of. That nearly half of our population is willing to put a brain-dead Marxist in the White House is pretty frightening. Seventy years of collectivism is culminating in this.

Part of me - the part that's moving to Costa Rica in a few years - is kind of looking forward to watching it all come crumbling down.

____________________

boskop:

@change

when i see posts like that of 'change' i find this site as woefully typical and quite dull.

this caliber of post can be found everywhere.

so nighty night!

____________________

boomshak:

Hmmmm,

This one might leave a mark:

http://wcbstv.com/local/clinton.palin.event.2.821565.html

"Sources: Intense Pressure Led To Palin UN Snub"

Is this a sign of things to come if liberals get absolute power?

____________________

ronnie:

for anyone to suggest obama is using the race card to his advantage is shameful....the guy hasn't run a perfectly clean campaign, but he has tried to instill a positive tone that millions were looking for...obama would have been out of this race a long time ago had he ran a racially motivated campaign.

____________________

change:

guys, lets leave this partisan stuff for a second' we could argue forever you know it. conservative or liberal, where do you guys see our country in 5 years?

____________________

marctx:

ronnie:

Obama did it to the best president in my lifetime. Everyone heard it in Bill's own words. Are you calling Bill Clinton a liar?

____________________

marctx:

I wish we could vote Bill back to fix this economic crisis. Obama can't even make a decision on a plan.

____________________

boomshak:

Raising Taxes on "Top 5%" Would Punish Small Employers and Ordinary American Workers

Despite the slowing economy, Senator Barack Obama admits that he will raise taxes if elected President. But, he assures us, only on the top 5% of income earners in America.

There's one problem with that - most taxpayers filing as individuals in the top income brackets are actually small businesses, which create most new jobs in America.

At first glance, many ordinary Americans struggling to make ends meet and put food on their tables might set aside their traditional opposition to higher taxes, and welcome tax increases for those who can presumably afford it. This is especially true during an economic slowdown, and as news continues to arrive regarding irresponsible corporate executives driving companies such as Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns into the ground.

When times are tighter, a "soak the rich" agenda has a certain superficial appeal to many voters. After all, why shouldn't fat cats pay an even greater share of the nation's taxes, since they continue to prosper while working families struggle? While working families strain to put food on their tables and gasoline in their automobiles, why shouldn't those in the top five percent bracket pay an even higher share of taxes?

This is an understandable sentiment.

As understandable as it may be among struggling families, however, here is the problem. Because most of those filing in the upper five percent are actually small businesses, which create most new jobs in America, many of those families will go from struggling to put food on their tables to not being able to put food on their tables at all. And they'll go from having difficulty filling their gas tanks to not being able to fill their tanks at all.

To explain, one must understand an important - but little-known and little-discussed - fact about individual income tax filers.

Namely, that most small business owners, otherwise known as "S corporations" or "S-corps," file taxes as individuals. This is not merely some sort of legal trickery or deceitful sleight-of-hand. Rather, this serves a very important purpose.

Small businesses file as individuals for the very good reason that it helps them avoid the double-taxation trap if they instead chose to file as corporations. Under our tax code, businesses organized and filing as conventional corporations, rather than as individuals, are considered separate legal entities from their shareholders. Accordingly, double-taxation occurs because corporations first pay taxes on their annual earnings, just as any individual filer would do. Then, however, the corporations' shareholders pay taxes a second time on the dividends that they receive. This occurs despite the fact that the very dividend income on which shareholders are paying taxes was already taxed a first time at the corporate level.

Therefore, in order to avoid this penalty of double-taxation, a majority of small businesses file as individuals, or S corporations. In exchange, they give up the advantage that conventional corporations enjoy of being able to pay dividends to their shareholders. And, in order to qualify as an individual S-corp, these businesses cannot have more than 100 shareholders. So there are advantages and disadvantages to filing under either status.

But here's where it matters to working Americans, and why they should resist the allure of "taxing the rich."

According to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, fully 75% of individual tax filers in the top bracket are actually small businesses. More importantly for purposes of working Americans, small businesses create 75% of new jobs in America.

Voters should therefore ask themselves whether small businesses encountering softening economic conditions would be more willing, or less willing, to hire new workers after their taxes are raised. Are higher taxes more likely, or less likely, to make them invest in productive activities, innovation and putting people to work?

Recent experience seems to answer these questions very clearly.

Prior to the 2003 tax cuts, the American economy lost 540,000 jobs in 2002, and 287,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2003. After the tax cuts, GDP growth went from 1.2% to 3.5%, and we added 311,000 new jobs in the fourth quarter of 2003 alone. By 2006, America was adding over 2.3 million new jobs. Considering the impact of the 2001 Clinton stock-bubble recession, the 9/11 attacks and Enron-type scandals, this recovery was nothing short of astounding.

History teaches again and again that lower taxes boost job growth and the economy, whereas tax increases weaken the economy and deter growth. Because tax increases on the "top 5%" will actually punish small businesses, all Americans must be very careful to consider the possible impact on their daily lives.

____________________

boomshak:

Barack Obama's tax increase plan

By Lee Wilson

No one is talking about this, but to me it's vital in understanding what Obama is saying he'll do.

Obama said many times that he would "roll back" George W. Bush's tax cuts. He said that very thing at the CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate in Manchester, NH, 6/3/07.

In the recent Bill O'Reiley interview with Barack Obama, Obama said that he would not raise taxes on about 95 percent of Americans. He would raise taxes on the other 5 percent of Americans, known to him as "the rich."

But if you put the two together, it paints a picture similar to what he first proposed back when he was talking about raising everyone's taxes.

How? Because when the Bush tax cuts come up for expiration, Obama said he will let them expire. Which, though technically we can't call that a tax INCREASE because he'd actually just be letting Bush's tax cuts "expire." That would effectively be a tax increase on every taxpayer because every taxpayer received a cut under the Bush tax cut based on what they paid in.

So what that basically means is that, if elected, he'll preside over a tax increase for every tax payer and then will hike taxes AGAIN on those who are the top 5 percent of wage earners. So he is accurate in saying that his plan doesn't call for a tax increase on all tax payers, but he said he would let it happen.

What this does is raise taxes to the level he first stated he would as the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News all reported. Yet with the convenience of technically not having to tell us that and not technically having it called a tax increase, Obama misleads us.

So if Obama wins, the taxes of all taxpayers will go up and then the top 5 percent will get hit again. That's a sneaky plan. Don't say I didn't warn you.

____________________

change:

If obama wins bomshak is gonna start crying ..lol and here is my prediction you righties - kerry states+iowa+new mexico+colorado

____________________

boomshak:

@change:

I'll be too busy hiding my wallet to have time to cry...

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak, you STILL haven't replied to my post, even when I laid it out there on your lap. All you've done is post more articles on why Obama will supposedly raise taxes, without replying to my very specific, direct explanations of why your very specific, direct assertions were WRONG. I will keep posting the link to my comment until you respond:

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

And not to mention that you didn't cite your ever-so-reliable, objective sources for the articles you posted up: "RightSideNews.com" and a right-wing blogger called Lee Wilson who describes his profession as a "writer and actor".

____________________

change:

Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

the difference is obama stands for hope, change peace prosperity. mcsame more wars and inequality!
Yes we can!

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

boskop said...
"when i see posts like that of 'change' i find this site as woefully typical and quite dull."

Does this mean you will not be posting here any more??

PRAISE G-D ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!! (and that's quite a statement from me, an agnostic who is more atheist than religious.)

____________________

macsuk:

boomshak

Man you wingnuts crack me up. Lets see Reagan was President from 1980 - 1988 so in 1989 we end up with the SNL scandal and a big bail out. George Bush is President from 2000 - 2008 and we end up with a housing and banking crisis and the biggest bailout in US history. Lets see, what are a few of the common denominators. Oh yes, a Republican was President, tax cuts where the popular conservative word of each decade and John McCain is promising tax cuts which will continue to promote trickle down economics which DO NOT WORK.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ change

I think it will be worse than that. I think the flaw that many of us are making this election is that we keep trying to study and examine it through the eyes of history.

Granted, it is the only basis we really have for comparison. However, this election is unlike any we have ever seen before. For example, we have talked for election after election about how the youth turnout will actually make a strong impact, only to be left disappointed. That is one area that I guarantee will change this year.

We already saw it happen...during the primaries, the youth vote shattered records all across the country. One of the most amazing things about the person that Obama is is he has inspired the younger generation to give politics a very serious chance. You cannot put a value on having millions of kids LEARN all about the political process or take part in community organization because of this inspiring politician they idolize. If it was 17% in 2004, I cannot imagine it being less than 20% this time around. Campuses all across the country are absolutely buzzing with a level of excitement that no poll can accurately account for because it is so unprecedented.

Although it is factually difficult to prove, by most accounts Obama has built a grassroots network that dwarfs anything ever seen in history. Once again, you cannot account for this in polling because nothing quite like it has ever been witnessed. The "ground game" so to speak, is designed to get people to vote on the day of the election. This, combined with a much higher enthusiasm level than usual, has the makings of a HUGE turnout unlike anything we have ever seen.

I admit that this is completely my opinion, and it very well could be that we are left disappointed again. I just caution that we don't make the mistake of judging this campaign by campaigns we have seen in the past. There has never been anything quite like this.

Obama will add Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico to the Kerry States. He will also add Virginia, Indiana and Ohio.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

We have a new PPP poll of North Carolina.

Obama 46%
McCain 46%
Barr 5%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_92168.pdf

____________________

Connor:

@boomshat-in-his-own-mouth

"Fail"? Dude, you play too many video games.

I like how he doesn't include the RSRCH2000 poll. "The Daily Kos commissioned it! Probably gave them an extra twenty to make it look good for Obama!"

Oh, boomshat-in-his-own-mouth, you truly are the biggest tool here.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

NC RCP Average, McCain +9.

Are you going to name your first child "Outlier"?

____________________

boomshak:

God I do love annoying liberals.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

The internals of the PPP NC poll have 14% more Democrats than Republicans polled. However, there are 13% more Democrats as part of the electorate in NC.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/

Am I the one that expects more than a 1% increase in the number of democrats to republicans voting in this election when considering enthusiasm?

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@boomskank

HAHA, you're going to throw AVERAGES at us after this week. Buddy...please...just stop. Averages? lol. In case you did not notice, your candidate took a beating of biblical proportions this week (although you would not know this if you pick and choose polls as you have become rather famous for doing).

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

The funniest thing about that NC poll is that Barr got 5%.

I mean, I doubt 5% of voters even know who Barr is.

Fail.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

All I have to say about that poll is:

BARR 5%

ROFLMAO!!!

What is that, like 500% of what he is polling everywhere else?

____________________

brambster:

And here's my prediction...

Kerry states + IA + NM + CO + NV + VA + OH

That's also the order of how much I expect they will favor Obama.

311 EV's

____________________

joecooper:

We love annoying liberals, don't we, boomshak?

____________________

change:

@Kerrdavis

Neo cons are panicking i never expected that poll from NC- you made my night

davis if i told you that a republican nominee had to worry about VA NC FL IN OH CO this late in the game what would you say? he's in trouble right? Michelle obama a.k.a "the closer" is working VA and NC, and she is good. CNN also had NC at dead heat- i cant wait to see state polling this coming up week when the state numbers catch up to the national bounce obama is getting> thank you again for making my nigth!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

Also to note:

The voter registration advantage for democrats was 10% at the start of the year. Now it is 13%.

McCain was not spending any money in this state until this last month, where he spent $265,000 in TV ads to Obama's $300,000.

____________________

joecooper:

You're gonna THINK "closer" after you've seen Sarah Palin close some things.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@change

but it does not matter if CNN, or the NY Times, or Reserach2000 or Gallup or anyone has a poll..if it isn't Rasmussen, it's an outlier. And if it's Rasmussen but it's bad news for McCain, Rasmussen has made a mistake with its Party ID and weighting. And if there ARE NO POLLS that show good news for McCain, this country does not elect a liberal.

Right, boomshat?

____________________

nomorerepubs:

Just signed up so I could push back the Republican TROLLS. I'm old enough to remember the 50's and 60's when America was America. America is a country I no longer recognize. In large part due to the Republican Party which has become nothing more than the spokepersons for big business.

IMO all of the pollsters have it wrong! None of them have come up with a good method of counting the votes of people who have no landlines, they just use cell phones these voters are largely young and Democratic. They have likewise discounted the hundreds of thousands of new voters that have registered Democratic in each of the swing states.

A paragraph about Obama. I don't want a Commander in Chief I want a President. A President has the best interests of the people as his primary resposibility, all the people not just the big corporations who are laying waste to our enconomy. Big Corporations who are eating up all the competition and then sending what were our jobs overseas. I want Obama to offer us hope for better days. I like the fact that he will make the necessary changes in policy that will allow us to employ Americans to repair our neglected bridges, dams, roads, etc. Obama will protect Social Security, provide a means for healthcare and pave the way for an America that is not dependent on the use of fossil fuels. We do not need foreign oil. If the oil companies lose their spokespeople in the Republican Party and we begin to build the infrastructure of the future, gasoline burning automobiles will be as rare as typewriters.

A paragraph about "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" John McCain and the top of the Republican ticket Sarah Palin. You want to talk about sexism, the Republicans and I say the Republicans, because quite frankly McCain is not smart enough to have thought of it by himself...but Karl Rove is!... are using this woman for political gain, they use her to get the numbers up at their rallies, no one wants to see McCain they want to see Sarah. McCain is the worst candidate that the Repubs ever came up with, period.

I predict that when all is said and done barring some illegal activity by the Party of criminally indicted Tom Delay and should be criminally indicted Karl Rove, Barak Obama will be elected President and it won't even be close. This is the best thing that could happen for America because the Republican Party has become a dysfunctional and corrupt entity comprised mostly of Rich, White, Christian, males and no longer has any resemblence to America as it is, they need to reinvent themselves anew.

____________________

boomshak:

@kerrchdavis:

You do realize that thousands and thousands of Republicans registered as Democrats just to cross over and vote for Hillary in Operation Chaos in NC, don't you?

Geesh. So gullible.

____________________

Connor:

@boomshat-on-a-kitten-once

"Hide your wallet?" Dude, I thought the Adult Megaplex paid you under the table (especially with all those hours you put in working the "closet in the back")?

____________________

change:

@boomshak

you are truly an idiot, y would u look at the RCP average when most of these numbers are driven by the economic crisis. Now if your still with me... this would mean that looking at number after the economic crisis would give us a more accurate picture of whats going on!

if you can understand that then I am so proud of you sorry i couldn't use words like good and evil to simplify for you hicks!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@change

I know! Can you believe he pulled up an AVERAGE?

what a moron.

____________________

change:

@kerrydavis

And don't forget if obama is up in all the polls its because their in the tank for obama and can't calculate the bradley effect, and even if the bradley effect isn't relevant then its illegal aliens that are being polled..lmao Neo Cons have truly lost it!

____________________

joecooper:

You say America was America "back in the 60's," back when Hanoi Jane was posing with the Viet Cong while our man McCain was forced to eat his own poo in a prison camp!

John McCain is an American hero who stands in front of flags and ate his own poo. For years!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@change

I mean, I cant believe the level of this idiot. Everytime I feel I have a good grasp of what a moron boomskank is, he amazes me even more.

An AVERAGE? Thousands crossed over to Hillary? No, not THOUSANDS! really? you mean, MANY, MANY hundreds? Oh ****..this is serious...

If next week McCain loses his temper in a debate and throws his shoe at a kid in the stands and we get an Ohio poll showing Obama up by 3, this idiot is gonna still be referring to AVERAGES.

____________________

Ryan in MO:

well said nomorerepubs

____________________

kerrchdavis:

If we find footage of McCain buying Bin Laden a beer and Gallup then shows Obama +20, he'll still be crying "Outlier."

Tool.

____________________

nomorerepubs:

boomshak:
@kerrchdavis:

You do realize that thousands and thousands of Republicans registered as Democrats just to cross over and vote for Hillary in Operation Chaos in NC, don't you?

Geesh. So gullible.

Your hope for four more years of failed economic, domestic and foreign policy is based on the rantings of a lunatic like Rush Limbaugh thinking that he can pull a fast one with the pollsters by having repubs register as dems. That's all you got...wow you are more deluded than I could have imagined!

____________________

change:

Joecooper,

lets look at what John Mccain has done to american over his career

Voted for the work in Iraq: 4ooo dead soldiers, and cost a trillion dollars, (while we are losing in the economy here), and dont forget it was over a lie

" I am fundamentally a de-regulator" WSJ. thanks to him the economy is in crisis now due to a lack of oversight.

Flip flopped on torture to get his parties nomination, and made us look horrible around the world

..there is more, but i rest my case!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@joe

maybe poop eating explains his awful teeth? just a theory.

____________________

change:

that poll is likely voters by the way not RV.. let me guess boomshak Republican vote registration has far exceeded dems this year right? lol, and their turnout will be way greater, and their ground game is way better .. lmao

____________________

change:

Kerrydavis

Mccain is gonna get owned in this debate.. obama is mad about the nasty attacks leveled at him, and your gonna see this harvard law proffessor own this delinquint!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@change

No, its that NC is a middle/right state that wont elect a lefty.

Or that Palin has flipped the enthusiasm gap and now more Repubs will be voting.

Its the internals! The weighting is wrong! Paty ID is amiss! Rush Limbaughs strategy! Barr has skewed it!!

LOL!!!

____________________

joecooper:

change:

Yeah, I guess you libs WOULD be against torture...because you never had to eat your own poo, like John McCain.

REAL Americans like me and boomshak think torture is great. Me and boomshak think McCain and Palin should ramp up the pro-torture part of their platform. Jane Fonda-loving latte-drinking libs like you and nomorerepubs just want to read the terrorists their rights.

If anybody is gonna be forced to eat their own poo, I say it should be the terrorists and not real Americans like me and the Boomer and John McCain.

Right, boomshak?

____________________

nomorerepubs:

Something Boomshak said about North Carolina from a guy who is supposed to know about polls. The battle is not in North Carolina, if John McCain is still fighting for North Carolina on election day he will have lost in a landslide. The battleground is the upper midwest. Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Obama WILL carry all of these states and North Carolina will be irrelevant...DO THE MATH

____________________

ritwingr:

Nomorepubs:

I wonder what it must be like going through live with that much envy and hate.

Hate the corporations that provide most everything you need to live. Hate the "rich" who provide the jobs. Hate the Christians.

You're pretty representative though.

Buy a house you couldn't afford? It's the BANK'S fault!

Is gas expensive? Why can't they make a car that runs on water and costs $10? MEAN RICH CORPORATE CEOS!

You see your betters prospering and it eats you up. Rather than go out and try to get rich yourself you want to elect politicians to steal what others have earned and funnel it your way.

You'll get your way, don't worry. You'll drive all the evil oil companies out of business. You'll get Cuban-style health care. You'll run the pharamaceuticals out too. You won't have to whine about the high cost of life-saving drugs any longer: no one will be making them!

Yes, America will become the workers paradise your type has been clamoring for for the better part of a century: hell we may even all start wearing Mao suits. You'll get your way.

Then no one will have more than you - or less. You'll show those evil rich white bastards! You'll make them as miserable as you....or so you think.

But they won't be, of course. Some because they'll still find a way to prosper, because, you see, they're just smarter and better than you. Others, because, like me, they'll have flown the coop before Atlas really begins his final shrug.

Enjoy your misery. I'll be thinking about your type and about what a great country this once was as I sip whiskey and smoke cigars in my comfortable retirement.

____________________

change:

@nomorepubs

your right, but other factors to consider:

Palin Mcsame must always travel together because she is a ditz that will mess up, biden and obama cover more ground.. and going to more places and meeting people face to face is very important

Obama is not taking public financing like kerry, so he is creating political war-machines in places like florida (budget for the state is 39 mill)and he is smashing fund raising records

Biden- he is very important he gives those rural folks some confidence in the ticket cause he rambles on like a drunk Irishman (no offense but they like that)

The Clintons- save your best shot for last. Imagine when the clintons' get out there full force in places like PA FL OH- possible the bounce leading into election day.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ritwingr

How is your buddy Hitler doing? you figured out a way to get him on the ballot yet?

____________________

nomorerepubs:

Geez Joe take a pill will ya! Seems you would have no identity at all without Boom. Right Boom. You're real Americans all us latte drinking libs are not real Americans. right Boom. I'm a Vietnam Vet just like McCain but McCain is a real American and I'm not. Right Boom.

Joe, buddy you need to wake up we are all real Americans and some of us and I would say most of us do not want to live out our days in perpetual wars with everyone who doesn't like us, Like Spain, hahaha.

____________________

change:

Kerrchdavis

they will probably say something like "if hitler becomes president then God will send Jesus to take us to heaven" Neo Con wako's lmao

____________________

Evolve:

@joecooper:

Two points, 1 were against torture for real americans like yourself, we believe YOU should get due process under the law, 2 If we support torture and ignore the geniva convention rules then this would allow our enemies to do the same. I personally don't what to see Americans grabbed in foreign countries and tortured under the same rules that were applying to others.

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

joecooper said...
"You're gonna THINK "closer" after you've seen Sarah Palin close some things."

You've got to open something before you close it, idiot. Pa-lie-an hasn't opened her mouth to the REAL press yet. And when she does, the McCain campaign will order her to close it REAL fast.

Think economic adviser Phil ('nation of whiners') Gramm.

Think economic adviser Carly ('I got a $42 million golden parachute firing bonus after running HP into the ground') Fiorina.

I can't wait until Pa-lie-an starts to open her mouth to answer some questions from the REAL press. The only question is how many hours (maybe minutes?) will elapse until she is ordered to close it.

____________________

ronnie:

marctx, the i have great respect for bill/hillary but it's clear they had to manufacture controversy to stay in the race...bill clinton saying obama used the 'race card' against him is part of it...sadly, hillary ran the same sleazy and disorganized campaign mccain is running right now.....the attempt is to try and generate controversy to get people speculating about obama's character and core values....nice try, but it didn't work.

____________________

ritwingr:

kerrchdavis:

Calling people who disagree with you "Hitler" is so brilliant, and ORIGINAL, it's remarkable no one thought of it before you.

Such is the state of "thought" on the left.

Not a surprise.

____________________

change:

@ joecooper

i think your joking, there is no way you could be this ignorant. Do you have children? parents? kids? what if it was them that was getting tortured, how much would that hurt? I can't believe we were dumb enough to allow you Neo-Cons to run the nation for 8 years, but on NoV.5 your FIRED! Hit the road jack!

____________________

nomorerepubs:

@ritwingr

Interesting how you ascribed all that hate to me. I never said I hate the rich, that I hated christians, etc. I don't hate these people at all. I.m simply saying that America is not just these rich, white, christian, males and for the Republican Party to ever be relevant again they had better put the Cuban cigars and imported brandy down and take a look out the window and realize that the world and America are far more diverse than that.

____________________

ritwingr:

change:

Regarding this: "Do you have children? parents? kids? what if it was them that was getting tortured, how much would that hurt?..."


Just curious: What's the difference between "children" and "kids?"

Or are you really worried that our troops might be torturing baby goats?

As for me, I have no children, parents OR goats who are Islamofascist madmen, so I'm not worried about it all that much.

It's good to know that you're out there fighting for the rights of foreign terrorists. For so long the left only concerned itself with the rights of domestic murderers, rapists, and thieves.

Nice to know you're taking your act global.

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak:

Once again, whether you ignore me or not, I will not let this go. For the FOURTH time: you have NOT replied to my refutation of your argument.

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

I will keep inviting you to respond until you do, even if that takes us beyond 4th November. Posting up random articles from RightSideNews.com and the blog of a 25-year-old actor (Lee Wilson) does not count as a refutation of this very simple, specific point. Either address my post directly, or give up and admit that you've distorted Obama's tax plan. I'm not some diehard liberal Democrat - in the last two elections I did not vote for the Democratic candidates: but you don't have to be a liberal Democrat to oppose distortions.

____________________

joecooper:

Now ritwingr has some ideas I can really get behind!

And you can tell by reading his post, he's a compassionate Christian like me! Heck, he even sounds a little like Christ.

Nope, no Mao suits for me or ritwingr, thank you very much. Just give us the country we want and deserve...where CEOs can finally get a fair shake, and of course we'll torture some people if it means not having to watch our fellow Americans stream out of the top of the World Trade Center.

Give me some good Christians running this country like John McCain (who looks great, by the way, now that he can stand in front of flags and is no longer forced to eat his own poo) and Sarah Palin, who glows on Hannity and has a child named Trig.

This country, ladies and gents, was founded by Christians, for Christians. And Muslims like Barack Obama and Joe Biden can GET OUT NOW!

Until then, me and ritwingr are going to laugh at all of you while we smoke each others cigars in some beach house somewhere.

Palin/McCain in '08!
Palin/Palin in '12!
Palin/Palin in '16!

____________________

Bigmike:

Why all the torture discussion? You guys act like we put sacks on peoples heads and make a home video of cutting their head off. I don't think that was us.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. They apply to uniformed soldiers of countries that signed the agreement. They were not wearing uniforms on 9/11 and Al Qaeda didn't sign off on the Geneva Conventions.

How does all of this apply to the current election? Maybe you should ask McCain what torture really is.

____________________

nomorerepubs:

Now I'm confused is Joecooper for real?

____________________

ritwingr:

Bigmike:

It applies for this reason. We will ummmmm.....soon have to ......errrrrr....listen to The...ummmmm....errrrrrr...... ObaMessiah speak without a, ummmm, a, ummmm, teleprompter.

I'm pretty sure that qualifies as torture. Or at the very least as cruel and unusual punishment.

In all 57 states.

____________________

ronnie:

Joe, I'm a Christian too...I guess the fundamental difference is that I believe moral issues stays in the 'church' and not in politics...The Republican parties repuatation has plummented that last few years thanks to numerous ethics investigations, fraud, distortions, etc....This is the party that is supposed to stand up for family values...Politicians using their religion for a political advantage are putting their own integrity and reputation at risk.....Keep the religious issues in the church and not in the hands of a politician simply trying to gain an extra vote.

____________________

Evolve:

@joecooper:

As a christian all I can say about that was WOW. Under the Bush administration he has labeled just about any organization that disagrees with him that has resulted in violence as a terrorist group. These would include many environmental groups, unions and womens rights organizations. Last I checked these groups were full of Americans, including your sons and daughters. These laws can allow the government to listen in to and abduct just about anyone that stands up to them under the guise of terrorism.

____________________

nomorerepubs:

@ritwinger

At least it won't be McCain singing bomb Iran or mixing up Sunni and Shia or dissing Spain thinking it's in Latin America or having his campaign run by lobbyists all the while claiming to be a reformer...well, except for that nasty little incident involving the Keating 5

____________________

ronnie:

Also Joe, falsely accusing Mr. Obama/Biden of supporting a certain faith is unchristian-like.

____________________

nomorerepubs:

@ronnie

AMEN

____________________

Mike In Maryland:

joecooper said...
"Give me some good Christians running this country like John McCain"

Is it Christian for a married man to run around with another woman?

Is it Christian for a married couple to divorce?

Is it Christian for a married man to get a marriage license for a future wife prior to the divorce from his current wife to be finalized?

WOW! What a Christian John McCain is, since he did all of the above.

____________________

Bigmike:

You know what I like about politics? Its a contact sport. Wait until the gloves come off!

joecooper is either a little over the edge or yanking a little left wing chain. Founded by Christians for Christians? Seems like I learned it a little differently in school. And Biden is a Muslim? Thats news to me.

Most terrorist in Gitmo never had it so good. Three meals a day, a cot, a Koran, and a prayer rug. A little waterboarding is a small price to pay. We are within our rights to drag them out and shoot them. My preference would be a little slow work with a dull knive.

____________________

metsmets:

The last fifty posts? I don't see any discussion of the upcoming election! or the polls! Some of you are conservatives and some liberals. Do you really think you're making the person on the other side reconsider their position(s)?
Today's polls suggest that the chances of Obama becoming the next President are brighter than they were a week ago. If you don't like that, argue as to why these polls are wrong!
Enough with the rhetoric!!!!!

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ritwingr

I'm not calling your hitler because I disagree with you. I'm calling you hitler because you act like a fascist nazi.

There's a difference. Please respect that.

____________________

ritwingr:

Nomo:

McStain, ObaMessiah...what's the difference?

Keating 5 or Tony Rezko?

Speech rationing or income redistribution?

"My friends" every 5 words, or "ummmm" every 5 words?

They both buy into the Global Warming scam. They both think the goverment can will scientific breakthroughs that make solar panels and windmills commercially viable, and that oil and coal are icky. They both want to run the drug companies out of business.

One's a hot-headed simpleton, the other's and air-headed simpleton.

Empty uniform or empty suit....pick your poison?

____________________

nomorerepubs:

@metsmets

You are right of course. It is just so much fun to argue with the repubs...Sorry

____________________

Bigmike:

metsmets

the chances of Obama becoming the next President are brighter

Please see the map at the top right of this page.

____________________

joecooper:

Ritwingr and Bigmike:

They just don't get it, do they? Apparently, they haven't spent enough time reading their Bibles, or they'd know that Christians have always tortured people. Christ said, (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Torture those we suspect might threaten us." And if there was ever a time in this country that we needed to heed the Word of God, it's now.

John McCain knows about torture, all right. The God-less Viet Cong forced him to eat his own poo for five years. And now he has an opportunity to become the most powerful Christian on Earth, and get some of Christ's good payback for all those years of poo-eating. And this time we won't stop at water-boarding. We're gonna squeeze their private parts until they holler.

But these people on this board aren't Christians. And as far as I'm concerned they aren't really Americans. I'm not sure what they are...some kind of slimy toad creatures from another planet, a planet where the creatures drink lattes before they praise Satan and throws bags over their heads...

Ritwingr, Bigmike, boomshak, I can't wait until we get on our houseboat and you smoke my cigar while we laugh at the slimy toad people. We'll praise the Word of Christ and sip our whiskeys with the other CEOs.

May God bless Palin/McCain in '08.

____________________

change:

The funniest thing is when Republicans call others unethical. i mean John MCcain has 100+ lobbyist running his campaign. Furthermore, he has introduced some of the most vulgar ads to ever air during a political campaign. He has changed positions several times throughout the last week of the campaign. In addition we have his wife's drug abuse caused by the stresses inflicted by his notorious Keaton 5 scandal. So why would a party with such a corrupt candidate charge others with being unethical? the irony....

____________________

ritwingr:

Kerrch:

"I'm not calling your hitler because I disagree with you. I'm calling you hitler because you act like a fascist nazi.....There's a difference. Please respect that.

But of course. How can I not respect it when a person calls another a Nazi without a shred of supporting evidence? It's so breathtakingly brilliant!

If I DIDN'T respect it, I'd ask you to cite a single thing I said that conform to the tenets of National Socialism.

I have such respect for your piercing logic, though (I mean you DID call me Hitler and all), that I dare not do so out of fear of the brilliant analysis you would most certainly elucidate.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@ritwingr

Thanks! It is brilliant! Thats the beauty of calling people names...no sources, nothing. You just do it.

:D

____________________

ritwingr:

Joe:

You're a C-minus satirist, and that's giving you affirmative action points.

I assume you're suffering some malady that would enable you to qualify. If not, that slips to a pity D-minus.

____________________

Bigmike:

Wow, change. I am impressed. The way you cut and paste that right out of the Dem playbook. What talent.

So what if McCain has lobbyist working on his campaign? So does the other side. How many execs that ran Fannie/Freddie into the ground are working for Obama? I know there are at least a couple. Is that change we need? Not in my mind.

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bigmike

"How many execs that ran Fannie/Freddie into the ground are working for Obama?"

Please, you tell us. Give us a source so ritwingr is happy too.

____________________

change:

ritwingr.

wats up with your rants.. why can u just simply state things in simple logical fashion. your statements sound so fraudgulant. Your a right wing nazi because you approve of torture, and invade countries to satisfy your religous desires for evangelical crusades. Just like Mcsame said days after 9/11 "next up Baghdad". well turns out that Al Qada had nothing to do with Iraq, but Mccain felt it was prior to even an investigation.

____________________

Bigmike:

Hey Joe.

Don't lump me in your crowd. I am not voting for anyone based on their religion. Too many of us have died to move the world away from zealotry. I am an agnostic whore monger. I like to think of it as a crack addiction. Qualifies me for govt giveaways.

kerrchdavis

Google it for yourself

____________________

kerrchdavis:

@bigmike

lol, ok buddy. That says all I need to know.

____________________

Bigmike:

kerrchdavis

You caught me in a kinder, gentler mood.

The former chief executive of Fannie Mae, James Johnson, was the original head of Obama's vice presidential search team. Johnson resigned from Obama's campaign amid controversy over discounted home loans he had received.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/08/news/companies/fan_fred_buying/?postversion=2008090908


In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586

____________________

change:

@Kerrydavis

Go to 538 and read the article that compares obama's ground game to McCain's ground game. Its shocking! really

____________________

ritwingr:

change:

"wats up with your rants.. why can u just simply state things in simple logical fashion."

You've got me, my punctuation-challenged friend. How could I possibly compete with such "simple, logical" utterances like:

"Palin Mcsame must always travel together because she is a ditz that will mess up..."

"your statements sound so fraudgulant."

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to make any fraudgulant statements! They might put me in the FraudGulag!

"Your a right wing nazi because you approve of torture, and invade countries to satisfy your religous desires for evangelical crusades."

1) Slight correction: I'm indifferent to torture of Islamofascist terrorists. I'm against torturing others, even leftists. Well, I might also make an excepton for people who talk incessantly in movie theaters...but that's it.

2) I've never invaded a country of any type for any reason. My Army is insufficiently trained at this time, and I don't have a big enough air force to provide adequate air cover.

3) I'm an agnostic. Are there any Crusades happening, though? I might sign up for the hot chicks!

"Just like Mcsame said days after 9/11 'next up Baghdad'. well turns out that Al Qada had nothing to do with Iraq, but Mccain felt it was prior to even an investigation."

I think you should call him a "neocon." That's almost as good as "Hitler!" and has the added benefit of making some small segment of people think you actually know what you're talking about.

____________________

joecooper:

Ritwingr, I'm on your side! I love CEOs, and deregulation, and torture! I'm a Christian, like you! We're going to smoke cigars!

And Bigmike, why you do me like this, man? We're on the same side! Like you say, too many of us have died.

Listen, fellas, we have to stick together on this or the terrorists win. I for one still support a Palin/McCain ticket because they believe in the same things we do: deregulation, smaller government, increasing the national debt, CEO's, torture, continuing the search for WMDs in Iraq for a hundred years. They are mavericks, and as boomshak said on here yesterday, he looks great standing in front of flags and she glows. They represent the change we need. And he ate his own poo BECAUSE HE WAS FORCED BY THE VIET CONG AND they will make sure we stop the senseless slaughter of all those innocent Christian embryos! I mean, who knows better what's right for women than Christians like us? Get real! Is there any doubt that WE are the people on this board with the SOLUTIONS?!

Why anyone would support Barack Obama is a complete and utter mystery. But I've always believed that the American people get the president they deserve.

Palin/McCain in '08!
Palin/Palin in '12!
Palin/Palin in '16!

____________________

Bigmike:

There is a lot more in the worldnetdaily article that I did not bother to paste. If you want to know the truth, read it.

Obama trys to play like he is different. He isn't. Neither is McCain. They are politicians. They have to have help from others who's profession is politics. So the same old crowd just recycles with a different candidate. On both sides.

Why am I in favor of McCain over Obama? The biggest difference is experience.

Also, Obama is on the left wing of the the Dem party. Clinton, for all of his faults, was somewhat centrist. You want to know what the world is like with the left wing running things, you have to go back to Carter. I remember my first mortgage at 11.5%. And unemploymnet worse than we have seen in the last 20 years. And 20% inflation. And Iran holding Americans hostage for 444 days and we couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it.

____________________

ritwingr:

Bigmike:

Hitler!

____________________

joecooper:

If you REALLY want to know what the world's like with the left wing running things, you have to go back to FDR. I know, he got us out of the Depression and ended World War II, big whoop, but not without turning us into Socialists! Totally not worth it!

But your comparison to Carter is more apt, Big Mike, because the world is currently a lot more like Carter's world than FDR's world, because our world is also in color. And yes, it's true, with someone like Carter in charge, the economy in this country could really be a terrific mess.

Like you, I prefer someone closer to my center.

____________________

mattisnotfrench:

Joecooper must be pulling our chains. As for the person who argued that global warming and/or climate change is a scam, you've officially left the realm of reality. The rest of the world would beg to differ with you.

Can't we talk about the election?

____________________

Bigmike:

ritwingr

Alles ist verucht!

____________________

Bigmike:

Ok, we can officially ignore anything joecooper says. What a dipstick. "Our world is also in color." Uh, Joe, they had color in those days too. I am pretty sure my dad would have told me if color had been invented in his lifetime.

Oh, you mean Obama is black? I think we all knew that. And those who aren't dipsticks could care less. Its about ideas, just not any of yours.

"Alles ist verucht" was a popular song in Germany in the 1930's. It means "Everything is crazy." Came to mind when people started tagging others as Nazi's. Of course things were crazy. They had libs in charge, lol.

____________________

brambster:

If you guys haven't noticed, joecooper and greg in charlotte are both the same guy...and that guy happens to be one of those nutty liberals that give other liberals a bad name. This is the same guy that is Voice_99, Brutus and countless other accounts that have been banned over time. I believe he currently has about 5 active ID's on this site. He's the same guy that makes up ID's mocking other people's ID's. His latest game is to impersonate a Republican zealot. He probably thinks that since I told him many times that he hurts his cause by acting like he does, he turned around and tries to act like a nutcase republican to hurt them.

This is just some crazy little kid.

____________________

Bigmike:

Thanks brambster

Good night all!

____________________

ritwingr:

Mattisnotfrench:

Perhaps you can tell us why the the sea surface temperature around the year 1000 was 1 degree Celcius higher than it is today? And ditto for around 500 and 1000 BC? Or why the mean temperature on the planet hasn't increased in the last 10 years?

I realize people like you have no interest in facts that don't conform to your worldview - and I'm sure everyone you know believes in the religion known as GlobalWarmingism wholeheartedly - but the facts just aren't there to support man-made global warming. It's a scam.

"Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.


SUMMARY

Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of "greenhouse gases," chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in "human-caused global warming" – hypothetical severe increases in Earth's temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" are now available.

Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average......

The rest is here for those open-minded enough to confront their faith in this religion:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Top

____________________

joecooper:

Jesus, Big Mike, you're not only mean and misguided, you're too stupid to know when you're being insulted. Ritwingr was smarter than that, and he's just about the dumbest guy I've ever seen on this board.

Read books, guys.


____________________

change:

@ritwngr

Anyone trying to defend Palin's views are simply not in touch with greater america. Greater america does not believe that abortion should be denied to victims of rape and incest. Greater America doesn't think that Iraq was a plan from God. Greater America does not think global warming is a myth. I mean greater quantitatively and qualitatively.

____________________

ritwingr:

Change:

Actually, despite a decade of relentless propaganda, the public is surprisingly, wisely skeptical of GlobalWarmingism.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 4-5, 2008. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of global warming? Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories. Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities. Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."

Fact: Cars, Industry - 54%
Fact: Natural Changes - 22%
Unproven Theory - 23%


Think about that. Even after all the scare stories, phony pictures of drowning polar bears, laughable movies about environmental apocalypse, trumped-up CNN documentaries, and leftist lecturing, barely half the people have been convinced that there's such thing as man-made-global-warming.

This before much of a counterattack has even been launched.

There is some residual commmon sense in America after all.

____________________

ritwingr:

One last thought on the Global Warming hoax.

When there are two sides of an issue, and one wants to debate the facts of that issue, while the other is holding his hands over his ears shouting "NA NA NA NA NA NA....I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" - you can pretty much be sure that the one who wants to discuss has the truth on his side.

Al Gore - the biggest idiot in American politics in the past half-century - steadfastly refuses to debate anyone on this topic. Why? He knows he'd lose.

Of course, Al Gore would lose a debate with a wall, but still....

____________________

marctx:

hahahaha!

SNL mocks the elitist out of touch liberal media's attempts to smear Gov. Palin.

Awesome. Let the media continue to Larry Sinclair Gov. Palin with a trooper that tasers kids.

Obama's army of smear merchants needs to watch out for the polar bears. To funny.

Bill Clinton 08

____________________

saywhat90:

marctx

the toopergate investigation was being done before palin's becoming mccain's vp pick. it is being taken over by the obama supporters. hard to do with a bipartisan appointed indepedent counsel. it is the mccain campaign who is making this a political issue by not simply being transparent about the whole.if she is innocent of the abuse then she should plead her case. it only makes i seem like she has something to hide by avoiding the issue. which makes her a typical politician. the mccain is using a good old bush strategy of blame the media and the democrats to use as a smoke screen. finally if there is real reform going on how come the american people are not feeling the effect of mccain reform in the senate. his immigrationg bill was killed by his own party,the campaign reforms he passed have had a marginal effect at best(still a lot of loopholes). mccain didnt even follow his own camapign reform bill.not for change,not a maverick, not mccain/palin. you know it and i know it.

____________________

boomshak:

IN POLLING, THE RESULTS DEPEND UPON THE SAMPLE:

You may have been hearing a lot about how Obama is SURGING in the Daily Gallup Tracking Poll. This seems to be the favorite poll right now for the MSM to quote. It has Obama ahead by 6 points nationally after being behind by 5 only 10 days ago.

But not so fast. If you look at the other well-known tracking polls currently being conducted, you will see that Gallup is an extreme outlier prone to wild 10 and 15 point swings over short periods of time (not something you usually see in a "tracking" poll with a +-2 margin-of-error).

Here is a sampling of the top 4 tracking polls:

Gallup Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 2756 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Rasmussen Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 3000 LV 48 47 Obama +1
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 922 RV 45 44 Obama +1
Battleground Tracking 09/11 - 09/18 800 LV 47 47 Tie

You will see that 3 of them have it either +1 Obama or tied. These polls have one thing in common. They are all following the Rasmussen Weighting Model of giving Democrats a 5 point advantage in Party Affiliation (based upon 45,000 interviews done over the 6 prior weeks).

At the same time, Gallup does not reveal what his Party Affiliation Weightings are. However, the large lead he is giving Obama is the same as other lesser known polls sponsored by such partisans as DailyKos which claim that only 26% of the electorate is Republican (a 9 point advantage to Democrats).

On a state level, we don't see anything like Gallup's 11 point shift to Obama in the last 10 days. Quite the contrary, we see states that had been leaning Obama moving into the undecided column.

CONCLUSION:
To properly evaluate a poll's legitimacy, you have to look at the internals, sample size and weightings used. When a pollster like Gallup refuses (for whatever reason) to reveal his weightings, one has to take his results with a grain of salt.

Right now, without a doubt, the most "transparent" pollster out there is Rasmussen. Like his results or not, you know how he got there.

P.S., In a recent writeup, Gallup stated that Obama's supporters are far more pessimistic on the economy than McCain's supporters. At the same time, Obama gets an 11 surge as the economy worsens. This leads one to believe that Gallup may, in fact, be overweighting Obama's supporters in the sample since the economy seems to be having such a dramatic effect on the numbers and it is his supporters who are the most pessimistic. Draw your own conclusions. Food for thought.

____________________

boomshak:

BRIEF STATEMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING:

Although, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas (retains the suns radiant heat, rather than just reflecting it back into space), it exists in our atmosphere in only tiny, infinitessimal amounts. There simply is not enough of it to retain the sun's warmth to make an difference at all.

The chief "gas" that retains the sun's warmth is quite simply water vapor. Add to this our oceans and the land and you know whay we don;t live on a frozen rock in space.

So it is not just a gas's ability to trap heat that matters, it is the DENSITY of that gas.

Attributing global warming to manmade carbon dioxide gas would be like trying to warm a bathtub of cool water with a single match.

On the other hand, sunspot activity, etc can clearly be tied to global warming as Mars has been warming over the last 100 years and there are no SUV's there (to my knowledge).

CONCLUSION:
The Global Warming Hysteria has served one good purpose and that is to focus our attention on getting away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy.

200 years from now, we will look back at the days we used to power our vehicles with exloding gasoline made from the bodies of rotted dinasoars the same way we look back at the Model-T today.

But does the "earth have a fever"? No. Clearly not. The only fever is in the size of Al Gore's Bank account by selling worthless "feel-good" carbon credits to gullible and guilty liberals.

____________________

boomshak:

COMMENTS ON TROOPERGATE:

The MSM loves to trumpet that there are many Republicans on the Board which has brought this investigation into being.

However, you have to keep in mind that Sarah Palin came into a corrupt Republican Establishment in Alaska and campaigned on a reform-minded platform. In so doing, she stepped on a lot of toes and many of them Republican.

One such Republican is the current Leader of the Senate. In a recent interview, it was clear that she has NO LOVE for Sarah Palin and effusively resents Mrs Palin insinuating during her campaign that she might have been a part of the corrupt Republican Establishment.

Many axes are being ground here and just because someone on the panel has an (R) by their name doesn't mean they aren't looking for some payback.

P.S., If only the MSM were as fascinated by Rezko (true corruption resulting in incarceration) as they are by this "he said, she said" case. As a recent cartoon so poignantly put it, "Chicago is in 'fly-over' country for the MSM..."

____________________

boomshak:

REGARDING THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY:

As you may recall, the Clinton Presidency was a complete disaster prior to Republicans taking over Congress. His first order of business as President was to put gays in the military, hardly earth-shaking centrist policy.

But the Republican Congress forced Clinton to famously "triangulate" to the center. This allowed him to co-opt many of the achievements of that Republican Congress as his own.

If we elect the ultra-liberal Barack Obama (voted liberal 97% of the time in his career), we will have no such balance in Congress to force him to the middle. We will be granting unchecked power to the most liberal members of our political system and they will be on a mission.

The only question will be, how long will the MSM allow Obama to still blame Bush for the country's troubles before they make him take some personal responsibility? We know it's more than 2 years because the MSM holds the Democratically Controlled Congress blameless in everything despite having been at the helm for 2 years.

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak -

This is really getting unbelievable. You couldn't refute my comment, so you ignored it. I re-posted it, and then you claimed that you'd already answered it. Then when I pointed out that you hadn't actually answered it, you just posted some random, irrelevant and misleading articles about tax from RightSideNews.com and some 25-year-old actor who thinks he knows something about politics.

Well, here is my comment yet again. I believe this is the fifth time, although forgive me if I'm one or two off. As I have said, I will keep posting it until I get a response.

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

If tax policy is so important to you and your small business, perhaps you should respond to someone who doesn't distort or lie about Obama's tax policy for small businesses. I don't lie about either major candidate's tax plan - I have no interest in doing so, because I have no crazy liberal or conservative ideological agenda (note my username) - and I would expect that if you make claims, you should make yourself answerable to the consequences.

____________________

boomshak:

SMART MOVE BY PALIN:

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has begun filling up her dance card for Tuesday's visit to the United Nations General Assembly.

She'll be meeting with Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner; President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia; and Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, according to a campaign official.

Tuesday's trip gives Palin a quick taste of foreign policy before her one-and-only debate Oct. 2nd with Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. She had also planned to participate in a rally against Iran but was uninvited after Sen. Hillary Clinton refused to appear alongside her and rally organizers decided against including politicians.

At the U.N. headquarters, Palin will be able to see world leaders address the 192 member states. Among them are President Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili."

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

Dude, don't get stuck on stupid. I have refuted and refuted.

The point is this, as stated in the articles I posted (by the way, you didn't refute the arguments in the articles, you just discounted them because their were written by conservatives without considering the content), Obama's TAX POLICY WILL COST JOBS - PERIOD.

If you raise taxes on the businesses that create 75% of the jobs in America, you will LOSE JOBS. As a matter of fact, you will lose tax revenues as well as the unemployed pay no taxes. You are taking a bigger chunk of a smaller pie.

Actually, it is somewhat hard to even figure out exactly what Obama's Tax Policy is since he keeps changing it every two days. He puts one idea out there and people don't like it, so he tries another and another and another.

I have never seen a politician who tries to play both ends against the middle to the extent Obama does. We still don't know his position on AIG do we?

As far as I can tell, here is Obama's current position on the economy:

1. "It's all Bush's fault."
2. "It would be imprudent at this time for me to take any clear positions as I want to wait and see how things turn out so I can be on the winning side."

Obama is like a gambler who only wants to place his bet after the game has ended.

____________________

StandardDeviation:

@boomshak:
"I have noticed something odd about Gallup on his website where he announces his polling.

Right before the poll is about to swing back the other direction he says something like, "Well, Candidate A is ahead now, but this could easily swing back the other way and Candidate B could lead once again..."

Then without fail, the next day, the poll starts to swing back the other way. "
---

Oh gosh, boom. You do know how tracking polls work, yes? They're rolling three day averages. Just because they don't tell you the results for each individual day doesn't mean that Gallup doesn't know exactly how the poll turned out for each day. They know if yesterday was a good polling day for Candidate X, and they also know if the first day of the rolling average was a particularly good day for Candidate Y. Of course, that day will drop off the average on the next poll, so it's really pretty easy to predict the direction of the next tracking poll if you know each of the individual days' results.

C'mon boom...think a little bit sometimes.

____________________

thoughtful:

9/21 Daily Kos R2K Tracking Poll: Obama 49 , McCain 42

Change Obama -1 from yesterday

____________________

boomshak:

UPDATE ON RASMUSSEN'S NEW WEIGHTINGS FOR THE UPCOMING WEEK:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_rasmussen_reports_party_weighting_targets_39_0_democrat_33_5_republican

"For polling data released during the week of September 21-27, 2008, the partisan weighting targets used by Rasmussen Reports will be 39.0% Democratic, 33.5% Republican, and 27.5% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, September 14-20, 2008, the targets were 38.7% Democratic, 33.6% Republican, and 27.7% unaffiliated. For the first thirteen days of September, the targets were 39.7% Democrat, 32.1% Republican, and 28.2% unaffiliated."

So, itty bitty advantage to Democrats here (+.4%) based upon the economy. Looks like it should have very little if any effect on the polling numbers.

This all seems in line with what one would expect and again puts the lie to the 9 point cushion partisan efforts like DailyKos give to Democrats in their sample.

____________________

thoughtful:

Boom

It makes so little difference that Rasmussen will probably be +2 - 3% Obama today. We'll know in an hour!

I thought he overcooked the books last week, this week he hasn't quite corrected it enough though, but it was getting embaressing!

____________________

boomshak:

MY GENERAL SENSE OF THE WINNING ISSUE:
The general sense I get from what I am reading and seeing is that the American people are just confused more than anything by the current economic crisis.

Although John McCain has done a better job than Obama in spelling out his vision (something is always more than nothing), neither candidate has given is their concise "Contract With America" on this thing.

I think the first candidate who comes to the table with their, "This is my exact plan and these will be my exact advisors and these will be the exact results we anticipate" may well win this election.

I have held all along that although this is a "change" election, the "change" people want is COMPETENCE.

The candidate who can put forth the most COMPETENT, CLEAR AND CONSISTENT approach to this crisis wins.

This, of course, will be a struugle for Obama as thoughout his career, "Competent, Clear and Consistent" are not the words one would use to describe his policies. Maybe he can get this one right, but he is working against type.

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughtful:

Rasmussen's new weightings won't start into effect until tomorrow and then not fully until Wednesday's reporting.

Remember that his party affiliation numbers are not some arbitrary decision on his part but based upon a HUGE sample statistically speaking.

Hell, at least he tells us what they are :)

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boom
So does R2K. This ID Weighting kicks from Sunday to Sunday!

____________________

boomshak:

I think an important key today will be to see if McCain can stop the drip-drip-drip slow bleed to Obama or even reverse it a point on Rasmussen.

Right now, McCain is suffering a "death by a thousand pricks" (not including the ones in here - jk :).

____________________

thoughtful:

Boom

It is interesting you say that.McCain is suffering a slow death through Palin poisoning.

The Ohio poll looks good for McCain.

The R2K poll has narrow to 7 (6 on the day)

The Diago/Hotline has it a dead heat yesterday same as Rasmussen.

And you said yorself that Gallup was an outlier.

____________________

boomshak:

For what it's worth, Intrade is now giving Obama a 1.9 pt advantage.

Overall, Intrade basically just reflects the latest polling, although it looks as if they aren't putting much stock in the Gallup/DailyKos numbers.

____________________

thoughtful:

Boom

Nat at 538 has it with a 70% Obama advantage on the poll trends.

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughful,

No, actually I don't think of it as "Palin Poisoning". I think it is more that she has lost some of the unrealistic "Iconic" status given to her initially and the undecided "Reagan Democrats" who initially flocked to her have returned to "undecided" as they wait to see what she is really made of.

Still, I consider Palin a major net plus to McCain. We'll see what the future holds on that.

More than anything right now, I think the recent movement to Obama has more to do with the economic situation than anything else.

Basically, a tie going into the debates.

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughtful:
Boom

"Nat at 538 has it with a 70% Obama advantage on the poll trends."

Yes, but he gives great credence to the Gallup/DailyKos numbers and I do not. His model swings wildly from week to week as Gallup's does.

For me, I'm just going to keep following Rasmussen. If McCain continues to bleed there to the point Obama leads well above the margin of error, I think McCain will have a problem.

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughtful:
Boom

"Nat at 538 has it with a 70% Obama advantage on the poll trends."

One must also keep in mind, that Nat is obviously a Democrat Partisan as you read his comments. I have no idea if that affects his polling, but it should be considered in the mix.

____________________

thoughtful:

@Boom

McCain made a bad choice.

Palin has turned on virtually every one who helped her up the political ladder in Alaska. They call that being a maverick turning on one's own party!

OMG more relations coming, more lies, no more happy mornings!

This ain't no tie, he's lost IA, down in NM, to close to call in NV, OH, FL, CO, VA.

Going into the debates -3% on Rasmussen that's not a tie not even statistical.

____________________

thoughtful:

Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows no change from yesterday as Barack Obama attracts 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 47%. Obama has gained ground over the past week after trailing by three percentage points last Sunday. The race is now back where it was for most of August before the two conventions and the Vice Presidential picks

____________________

boomshak:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows no change from yesterday as Barack Obama attracts 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 47%.

____________________

boomshak:

@thoughtful:

Lol, we need to get a life!

____________________

boomshak:

WOW, ACCORDING TO NEWSWEEK, OBAMA TELLS THE BIGGEST WHOPPER OF THE CAMPAIGN SEASON SO FAR!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160179

FACTCHECK.ORG
Obama's Social Security Whopper

"He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False."

Damn, I know some of McCain's ads danced around the edge of the truth based upon one's interpretations of the facts, but this ad and comments by Obama are just bald-faced, full-blown, fire-breathing, burn-in-hell, wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap LIES.

Man, I hope McCain runs some ads exposing this and calls them DESPICABLE LIES as Obama likes to do when referring to McCain's ads.

____________________

KipTin:

Wow... today's Daily Kos is Obama 49-McCain 42. Looks like Obama is losing his economic "bounce."

Just Kidding!!! Wanted to demonstrate how foolish Obamanation sounds when the daily tracking polls even move one point in favor of their guy.

____________________

slinky:

Prepared remarks of Obama for delivery in Charlotte, North Carolina, today, Sunday:


Barack Obama in Charlotte, NC

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery
Charlotte, North Carolina
Sunday, September 21, 2008

The news of the day isn't good.

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a perilous moment. They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild. And now we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression

But here's the truth:

Regardless of how we got here, we're here today. And the circumstances we face require decisive action because your jobs, your savings, and your economic security are now at risk.

We must work quickly in a bipartisan fashion to resolve this crisis to avert an even broader economic catastrophe. But Washington also has to recognize that economic recovery requires that we act, not just to address the crisis on Wall Street, but also the crisis on Main Street and around kitchen tables across America.

As of now, the Bush Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan. Even if the U.S. Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects the basic principles of transparency, fairness, and reform.

First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.

Second, taxpayers shouldn't be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.

Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.

Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.

Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.

Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I've been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.

And finally, this plan can't just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs, and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states.

So I know these are difficult days. But here's what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenge because we've never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us; it's written by us.

But another thing I know is this – we can't steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. And that's what this election is all about.

Because while I certainly don't fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we're facing right now, I do fault the economic philosophy he's followed during his 26 years in Washington. It's a philosophy that says it's ok to turn a blind eye to practices that reward financial manipulation instead of sound business decisions. It's a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people and our country.

We're now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us – on Wall Street as well as Main Street. And yet Senator McCain, who candidly admitted not long ago that he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, wants to keep going down the same, disastrous path.

He calls himself “fundamentally a deregulator,” when reckless deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the problem.

And here's the really scary part. Now this “Great Deregulator” wants to turn his attention to health care.

He wrote in the current issue of a magazine – the current issue – that we need to open up health care to – quote – “more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking.”

That's right, John McCain says he wants to do for health care what Washington has done for banking.

Think about what that means.

Over the years, states have come up with common sense rules to make sure that insurance companies aren't just looking out for their own profits, but for your health. And we cannot toss those rules out the window.

As anyone who has health care knows, the one thing we don't need to do is give insurance companies an even freer hand over what they charge, who they cover, and what they'll cover.

The radical idea that government has no role to play in protecting ordinary Americans has wreaked havoc on our economy. And we cannot let this dangerous philosophy spread to health care.

What we've seen over the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on this failed philosophy. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more.

The times are too serious. The stakes are too high. At this moment, in this election, we need real change – change that's more than just a slogan, change that actually makes a difference in people's lives. And that's the kind of change I'll bring to Washington when I'm President of the United States of America.

That's the change the American people need.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that's how we'll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn't want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

I will also create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the change we need will come without cost – though I have presented how we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we'll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.

But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don't want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don't want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children's future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

At this defining moment, we have the chance to finally stand up and say: enough is enough!

We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we've battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success. That's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth generator – it's bound America together, it's created jobs, and it's made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education that helps your kids compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, make some calls, talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win North Carolina, we will win this election, and we will change America together.

____________________

slinky:

About Phillip Butler

Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals.

After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

____________________

slinky:

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

____________________

slinky:

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

____________________

KipTin:

Hey...slinky...Do you know what spamming a blog site look like: Because you surely have accomplished that feat today on this thread.

____________________

ReprobateMind:


Rasmussen Polls

9/3-5, 3000 LV, MOE 3
McCain: 46
Obama: 49

9/6-8, 3000 LV, MOE 3
McCain: 48
Obama: 48

9/12-14, 3000 LV, MOE 3
McCain: 49
Obama: 47

9/15-17, 3000 LV, MOE 3
McCain: 48 %
Obama: 48 %

9/18-20, 3000 LV, MOE 3
McCain: 47 %
Obama: 48 %

Within MOE / NL. Statistically No Movement.


____________________

boomshak:

BIG SHIFT IN SATURDAY POLLING IN GALLUP TO MCCAIN!

Well, Gallup is back down from his silly +6 Obama to a slightly less silly +4 to Obama. Of course, since this is a 3 day tracking polling and Obama went from +5 to +6 in the previous two days, it means he must have polled dead even to +2 on Saturday to bring it back down to +4 on the average.

From +6 (or more) to +2 (or less) in one day is a big shift and probably refects two things:
1. Obama's utterly lame "wait and see" non-leadership on the financial crisis.2
2. The bombing in Pakistan.

Man this is a fun election.

____________________

boomshak:

"If change were declared a crime tomorrow and Barack Obama was arrested on suspicion, would there be enough evidence to convict him? If talking about change were declared a crime, Mt Obama would surely serve 3 life sentences..."

____________________

metsmets:

@Boomshak
Gallup? Have you no shame? You, of all people, love Gallup polls?

Sincerely
Rasmussen

____________________

thirdparty:

@boomshak:

Nice try. You still haven't refuted my post at all. You say that you've "refuted and refuted". No you haven't. You replied to my first post, and then you went cold. Here it is again, for the eighth time.

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

You accuse me of not refuting your articles. That's because I have no obligation to, because it's not my responsibility to refute articles which you've found through some random Googling and which come from the ever-so-reliable sources "RightSideNews.com" and a 25-year-old actor who thinks he can write.

On the other hand, you did make a post on business taxation which I objected to, and which I replied to. Then you replied back, attempting to refute my post. Then I pointed out how you were completely wrong, and how 98.6% of small businesses would pay LESS tax under Barack Obama's plan, and how the substantial SS tax increase for you would only start in 2019.

You did NOT refute that. You have STILL not refuted that. I continue to invite you (this is the ninth time) to refute it.

/blogs/us_daily_tracking_91618.html#comment-53878

I can only assume that you now agree with the central propositions that I put forward.
(1) 98.6% of businesses will either be in the same tax position or BETTER OFF under Obama's tax plan.
(2) Obama's tax plan will NOT apply the social security tax your entire income, as you have continually and falsely asserted. There is a doughnut between $102,500 and $250,000 which is entirely SS tax-free. That amount will increase, indexed with inflation.
(3) That SS tax plan will not come into effect until 2019: eleven years from now. In the meantime, Obama has pledged several new grants, incentives and assistance packages for small businesses.

So in conclusion: Obama's package will leave the vast majority of small businesses better off than under the current, GOP-established system. Thanks for your time.

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

Dude, you are starting to creep me out. can I get a restraining order in here?

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

How the hell do you even know what Obama's tax plan is anyway? The damned thing changes every day.

First he wants to double capital gains taxes, then he doesn't. First he wants to tax all income for SS then he doesn't. First he wants to roll back the Bush Tax Cuts then he doesn't. I can't f*cking follow it. The man has no center at all. He has no core beliefs other than his own edification.

Yet you still refuse to refute the facts of the articles I posted simply because republicans wrote them. Idiotic and weak, but so typical for a liberal.

Until you address the key facts in the articles I posted, this discussion is over.

____________________

boomshak:

@metsmets:

I called Gallup's polling "silly" and you think that means I like it? lol, ok.

____________________

thirdparty:

boomshak:

No, it's not. I have NO obligation whatsoever to reply to the articles that you post. On the other hand, YOU directly engaged with MY initial post on Obama's tax plan by making a comment. When I posted back, refuting that direct engagement with my post, you decided to back out and instead post a whole jumble of unrelated articles.

You're right: this discussion is over. And you have now admitted that - 98.6% of small businesses will be either in the same position or better off under Obama's plan; you will not pay SS tax on your entire income; even when you do have to start paying SS tax on income over $250,000, that won't be until 2019. Next year when you get the tax bill for your business, you will get a PLEASANT surprise.

Thanks for your time, boomshak.

____________________

How can our country spend 10 million dollars every month in Iraq and have a healthy economy here in the U.S.? Iraq has a 75 billion dollar surplus while we have record setting budget and trade deficits.

McCain and Palin have no economic plan and no plan to end this war in Iraq. McCain and Palin are the same as Bush and Cheney. I don't want 4 more years of the same.

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

____________________

thirdparty:

By the way, you do no justice to yourself by resorting to ad hominem attacks. For a start, I'm not a liberal. If I were a liberal, by your estimation, I'd probably be lauding Obama's tax plan for how it supports tax increases for the top 1% of the population while cutting taxes for the working and middle classes.

I firmly classify myself as a moderate with somewhat CONSERVATIVE views on the economy and taxation. I call myself THIRDPARTY to illustrate the fact that when it comes to party ID, I'm classified in that third box: INDEPENDENT. Which just goes to show that you don't have to be a liberal to take exception to misrepresentations.

____________________

whitetower:

If Obama is such a tax cutter, then I presume that he will be cutting expenditures as well -- sort of like Reagan, I suppose.

Why, then, do liberals support Obama?

____________________

thirdparty:

@whitetower:

He's not "such a tax cutter", or certainly not in the way that you might suggest.

Sen Obama will cut taxes for the vast majority of small businesses and for middle and working class voters. The Washington Post conducted a study finding that on average, based on family income, those families earning less than $603,403 per annum - that is, 99% of taxpayers - will either pay no additional tax or receive a tax cut. However, that is balanced by the fact that there will be tax increases for those in the top 1% of the population. This is the opposite of Sen McCain's tax plan, which gives the greatest tax cuts to the top 0.1% of the population, and almost nothing to lower-income earners.

The ultimate consequence of this is that Sen McCain is cutting taxes by a lot more than Sen Obama - except that (1) about 75% of the population will be either no worse off or better off under Sen Obama than under Sen McCain; and (2) about 99% of the population will be either no worse off or better off under Sen Obama than they are now.

Those who might be considered to be "worse off" will have the blow cushioned by (1) certain concessions and benefits as a mild form of compensation, and (2) time-setting - as I noted to boomshak (and which he didn't reply to), the imposition of the SS tax for small business revenues over $250,000 will only come into effect in 2019.

Contrary to common belief among conservatives, liberals are not against tax cuts. As I understand it, they are against tax cuts which disproportionately benefit those who already benefit from the current system. For example, liberals don't understand why high-income employers - whose companies benefit from easy-going labour laws - get a further benefit by having their taxes cut. So: liberals support Sen Obama because he's cutting taxes for the working class. I support Sen Obama because of his foreign policy, although that's another story. But I can easily tolerate his economic policy, because it's not nearly as radical as a lot of people like to suggest.

____________________

dianehelen:

Palinisbushwithlipstick said:

>>>>You think anyone with a brain is going to vote for mcsame?

Hmm now, THATS a scary thought, because if you look at the last 8 years, and even extract the first 4 years, and credit it to a Supreme Court Presidential Annointment, just LOOK at who this country voted BACK in fair and square (Well fair and square according to the right.., who have the amazing power of spinning a war hero into a villain agaist a draft dodger)

Case in point, sadly this country, or at least the voters IN it, do NOT have a "brain"

That is WHY these polls are even as close as they are.

With EVERYTHING that has happened to totally errode this country with W at the helm, the Dems SHOULD have a CLEAR lead and path to take over..

And they DONT!

The Dems are DUMB and the Reps are LIARS, and damn good ones.. LOOK how many PEOPLE are still flocking to see Scary Sarah!

Enough to make any intelligent Americans Blood CURDLE!

We are a country that 75% of the voting public, make their decision on 30 second sound bites, and NOT reading cadidates records..

____________________

boomshak:

BARACK OBAMA: MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK

You know, watching the NFL yesterday, I was noticing how brave these quarterbacks have to be, making snap decisions in the heat of battle with 350 lb linemen bearing down. If they decide well, they are heroes, if they decide poorly, they are bums.

And I thought to myself, you know, Barack Obama has never been like one of these brave warriors. He has always been more like a MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK.

You know, the guy who has nevr taken a snap in his life, but pontificates by the water cooler on Monday morning after the game is over about all of the things he would have done differently and how things would have gone so much better if he were the quarterback in those tough situations.

Being POTUS isn't a job for a MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK. The fact that Obama has had the chance to take real snaps in real games for the last 10 years but has chosen not to shows a lack of BRAVERY TO MAKE TOUGH CHOICES on his part.

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

You continue to exist in a dream world. First of all (and using your own logic here), you quote a study by the Washington Post. Well, that AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIES any finding they have since it is one of the most liberal rags in the country next to the NYTimes.

Secondly, Obama wants to let all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which will raise taxes on everyone making more than $42,000 a year (or has he changed his mind on that again too? I honestly can't keep up with this "moving" tax proposals).

Thirdly, about 40% of Americans don't currently pay taxes right now at all. Obama's "tax cut" for them is a "welfare check". Dems, of course, love welfare because the more dependent upon government people are the more power liberals have.

Think about it, what motivation do liberals have to make Americans prosperous when most prosperous people end up voting Republican?

Last point. In his entire career, Barack Obama has NEVER voted to cut taxes. Not once. Never. Tell me this. If he has absolute power in Washington with Dems controlling every branch of government, why should I believe he would even cut taxes as he has promised?

Man of his word? Not likely. ook at all the positions he has changedd just since the primaries. We KNOW all of his tax proposals hav changed dramatically.

The biggest problem with Obama is not is "idea de jour". The biggest problem is that he cannot be trusted.

____________________

boomshak:

@dianehelen:

Please provide me with 3 examples of DRAMATIC CHANGE Barack Obama has spearheaded during his 10 years in Congress:

Legislation with his name on it?
Bold votes against his own party?
Daring budgets crafted?
Cabinets appointed?
Taxes cut?
Reforms initiated?

There is the famous old saying by Harry Truman: "The Buck Stops Here!"

I would like to research Obama's background to find out when that statement has applied to his political bravery in times of crisis, but there is no HERE, there.

Surely a man of Obama's transformational prowess would have some track record somewhere of bringing about change. I mean, he can't have just been storing it all up for when he is POTUS can he?

And you think Republicans are "stupid" for voting for McCain/Palin? Lol.

____________________

boomshak:

@thirdparty:

Let's discuss Obama's wonderful "tax cut for 95% of Americans" for a minute. This is basically going to be $500 a person or $1000 for a couple.

Ok, $500. That equates to $41 a month, or $1.40 a day extra in my pocket.

So I am supposed to give absolute power to liberals to run my government for the next 4 years so that I can afford two extra cans of pop a day?

You are mad.

____________________

boomshak:

EVEN LIBERALS ARE CALLING OBAMA OUT ON HIS RECENT LYING ADS:

"The problem for a candidate living in a media bubble is that he comes to believe he can get away with anything. Barack Obama certainly has made that error, but finally the MSM (under a torrent of criticism from the McCain camp and the conservative media) may be making some baby steps in the direction of fairness. At least one liberal columnist discovered that Obama is in the running for the “biggest liar” award.

Ruth Marcus explains that, of course, McCain is a liar (facts? support? too much to ask), but she now acknowledges that :

a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air. On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh — and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.
Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided. . . There is a fair argument to be had about the wisdom of having workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. This year’s plunge buttresses the contention that such accounts are too risky to comprise even part of what was conceived, after all, to serve as a safety net. But Obama’s cartoon version of private accounts is not what Bush suggested, and it certainly is not something being peddled by McCain now.

It remains to be seen whether her brethren at the Post –including those who excoriated the McCain camp for having the nerve to rely on the Post’s own reporting about Franklin Raines’s association with Obama — will follow suit. But it never pays to be the last one the MSM gets annoyed with.

The more interesting question is whether it makes any difference on Election Day. If Obama isn’t concerned about a tough op-ed or two, there is something that should concern him: those mobs of young voters who sweetly trusted in the New Politics may decide a run-of- the mill the old-style politician isn’t worth turning out to vote for."

____________________

boomshak:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, September 22, 2008

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows—for the third straight day--Barack Obama attracting 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 47% (see trends). Obama is viewed favorably by 55%, McCain by 54%. Rasmussen Markets data currently gives Obama a 51.7% chance of victory."

This sucker is dead tied going into the debates. Expect Gallup to fall into line today, maybe +2 to Obama.

This really is an exciting election.

____________________

dianehelen:

Frankly, I am NOT the biggest Obama supporter.

I am a former Hillary supporter, and it SHOULD have been her, but ONCE again, the Dems are DUMB and the Rep LIE!

Also, I find it simply amazing, that out of a quarter a billion human beings, THESE 2 are the best we can come up with? GAG! But I WILL vote for Obama, just because the alternative is just too scary to even imagine.. Personal Freedoms, Supreme Court, Womens Rights, Ecomomy, MORE MONEY just draining off to Iraq and figihting terrrorism? Ya, I see how well THATS all working.. (Pakistan?)

I never said the rep. are stupid. They are just LIARS! They LIE for their own personal good, and distort EVERYTHING for their own gain.

Pro life? Ya, sure.. so how can you be pro life and pro death penalty?

Pro Tax cuts , Ya sure for their fat cat buddies..

Anti Socialism? Ya sure, exept for Corporate Welfare

Anti wall street fat cats? Ya sure,. Carly Fiorio FIRED from HP with a 45 MILLION dollar parting gift..

and whats the big woop about voting against your party? IF your "party" ideas are basically kind, and sound, and fair, there is no reason to vote again, just for the sake of a sound bite,.

I will vote for Obama and even with his lack of experience, his brain is functional, I dont believe mccain/palin would do anything for the country other than set it up for 2012 for Hillary

____________________

boomshak:

DailyKos Poll, showed Obama with only 4 point lead Sunday:

DATE MCCAIN OBAMA BARR NADER OTHER UND
09/21 44 48 2 2 2 2

Now keep in mind, that the good post-partisans at DailyKos seem to believe that only 26% of registered voters are Republicans (laughable).

Nevertheless, this is down from an 8 point lead for Obama done just two days prior. So even in this bogus excuse for a poll, we see things trending back towards McCain.

____________________

whitetower:

@boomshak

Also keep in mind that the KOS kids think that there are twice as many under-30 voters than there really are.

____________________

boomshak:

@whitetower:

Well, the RCP Average doesn't even consider the DailyKos Poll to be a serious effort, so, 'nuff said.

Rasmussen has had this thing within the MOE for 51 out of last 56 weeks. All the speeches, all the ads, all the conventions and all the millions spent and here we are, right back where we started.

Funny in a way.

Perhaps the most telling thing of all is The Messiah's inability to get and hold over 50%. He has every conceiveable advantage, yet he cannot get above 50%.

____________________



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