10/10-12, 08; 2728 RV 2%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Obama 51, McCain 41
These numbers are hardening quicker than McSame's arteries!
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:43 PM
It's a McCain Comeback!
...back to a 10 point deficit.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:44 PM
LV1 O:51 M:44
LV2 O:53 M:43
LV AVG: O:52 M: 43.5 (+8.5) +2.5 since yesterday
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:45 PM
Why do these 51% of Americans support Obama?
Shouldn't they be off hating America or something? Why are all these liberals in the USA even enfranchised in the first place (there ought to be an IQ test to vote). It's not fair that McCain is losing this election when the guy who is winning doesn't even love this country, he has a greater affinity for terrorists than Americans.
It is not even fun anymore.
Blah blah blah....I read on drudge reprt....blah blah....I read an article in the Washingston Times....New York Times are liberal pinko commies.......blah blah
Give up yet?
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:46 PM
What's next wakeup and boom?
Perhaps they know the lies you are throwing out there are just that ... lies. Even if you think they are the truth (LOL @ IQ tests - that's the pot calling the kettle black).
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:47 PM
your ignorant characterization of liberals is as stupid as it is offensive.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:48 PM
Missouri: Obama 51 McCain 43
Also, how appropriate is "alankeyesisawesome" ... Alan Keyes lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate race. LOL
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:49 PM
alankeyesisawesome if there was an "IQ" test to vote I think the Republicans would be in BIG trouble.
Well, Gallup has answered the question I asked about their poll last week, namely, is their gap bigger than the other trackers because they are the only ones not reporting likely voters? They reported likely voters today:
"Among typical "likely voters" -- the subset of registered voters who appear most likely to vote on Election Day according to their current voting intentions and past voting behavior -- Obama's lead is a slightly narrower seven points, 51% to 44%. This assumes that about 60% of the voting age population will vote, slightly higher than the 55% who turned out in 2004.
"Among a more broadly defined likely voter group that only takes into account current voting intentions -- not past voting behavior -- Obama's lead is the same 10 points as among all registered voters, 53% to 43%. This group represents approximately two-thirds of the general public, a significantly higher proportion than has turned out in any recent election."
So what does this mean for everyone else's likely voter model? Is a gap of 3 points towards the GOP based on past voting history typical? (I'm ignoring significance here, obviously; I'm just posing the question.)
HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah us stupid uneducated liberals. Instead we should just get on our knees and accept it.
Weighted average of 5 daily trackers only, for today.
(Note that I am using Gallup LV II model as from today.)
This is identical to yesterday' result.
I think Republicans are smarter than you give them credit for...I've never been called by a pollster, but if I were, I'd say I was voting for Obama even if I am voting for McCain (the war hero)...this way I can catch the demoncrats off guard.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Republicans vote McSame "you loose your jobs"
McCain is 0 for 8 in national polls released today.
Obama leads by double-digits in 4 of these polls.
Obama's lead ranges from 4.3% (Zogby) to 12% (Research 2000).
The Zogby tracker apparently has at least as many men in its sample as women; in 2004, the male/female split nationally was 46/54. See:
alankeyesisawesome you don't want to go there comparing educational levels of Blue Vs. Red States. There are alot of smart folks in red states but no doubt 75% of the US GDP happens in blue states as well. So go bite McCain.
The only reason McCain is not buried yet...is that he only has to win in traditional GOP strongholds. That's why McCain and Palin being in PA tomorrow, Palin in NH all day Wednesday and then ME on Thursday is interesting.
Maybe their internal polling is showing something very different, and that's possible. Even Ed Rendell said he doubts Obama is up by double digits in PA. Plus I got burned by polls in 2004, so I should know better.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:51 PM
Maybe you should go back to the 1960's where your hate politics belong. We've finally grown up as a country. We're facing too many problems to keep up this vicious infighting. You disagree with us, fine. It doesn't mean we have to act like we're in Soviet Russia and we have to exterminate anyone who thinks differently.
Since when does pollster report Rv numbers over Lv numbers?
From Billy Kristol no less in the NYTimes talking about what McCain/Palin should do. Among other things . . .
"Provide total media accessibility on their campaign planes and buses. . . .Keep just a minimal staff to help organize the press conferences McCain and Palin should have at every stop and the TV interviews they should do at every location. Do town halls, do the Sunday TV shows, do talk radio . . ."
Um, could this be why they are getting bad press?
Again, it's just so much easier to blame the problems on some MSM conspiracy than on the ineptness of your candidate.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:52 PM
Latest "McCain is winning" argument: people are lying to the pollsters.
It is joining the Bradley Effect argument (Obama lead + 3%) as the TRUTH.
alankeyesisawesome showing your intelligence right now:)
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:53 PM
Liberals have been on their knees for Abortion doctors and the homosexual lobby since the dawn of time...doesn't mean that the majority of Americans can stomach it. In the last 2 presidential elections there has been a landslide win for republicans...I don't doubt that it will be the same case this year...just you wait.
alankeyesisawesome I mean Boomshak...stfu with your ignorance.
I've never been polled either. But the tactic you mention is bad tactics (I've worked in campaigns for 10 years). First, not enough R's could coordinate that effort to make a dent in a poll. Second, doing so only hurts the R candidate because it can cause antipathy in supporters, causing less volunteerism, less $$$ and in the end less votes because of the "what's the point?" mob mentality that would correspond to the results.
In other words - lying to a pollster only HURTS your cause - not helps it. But - hey, R's are used to lying - so who am I to stop you.
Alan Keyes is awesome! So awesome that he received 28% against Obama in 2004.
However, while the polls are good, Bill Clinton had a 14 point lead at this time in 1992 and won by about 5.5%
I want to win big, VERY BIG. The less Republicans around after election day the better for America. Let's keep working hard these last three weeks to crush the enemy.
But as a famous Cuban philosepher once said:
DON'T CROSS YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE YOUR BRIDGES IS HATCHED!
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:54 PM
It's funny that Gallup said yesterday that "there are signs of the race tightening" or something of that sort. It was in all likelyhood just noise and this pretty much confirms it. Obama is steamrolling to victory.
"In the last 2 presidential elections there has been a landslide win for republicans."
WOW! Official troll alert :).
You're funny. I'm surprised at how many folks don't get your jokes. You're obviously jesting. Voting for Democratic presidents produces higher growth in GDP, more income equality, AND greater overall personal income growth, as well as far greater public budgeting integrity. GOP administrations = lower growth, more income inequality, and total blow-up of deficits and national debt. Facts, empirical data, objective analysis all support those conclusions. So any reasonable, objective, fact-based person would vote for Democratic presidential candidates, rather than economy-destroying and, hence,America weakening Republicans. Using the logic of our GOP nutcases here, the U.S. has become more influential and stronger during the stewardship of the GOP. Who is stupid?
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:55 PM
It's already been proven that republicans are smarter than Democrats...that's why the majority of people with college degrees vote Republican...of course, there is the variation that when you into postgraduate degrees you end up seeing more democrats than republicans, but that is because so much time being brainwashed by the liberal elite (more than 4 years of college) takes its toll.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:56 PM
I think that is safe to assert that Obama has a solid 7.5% lead with Likely Voters nationally.
When it comes to voter model for this election, all the pollsters guessing. My own punt is that Gallup's model II will accurately reflect increased participation by young adults and minorities, and that model I involves an inherent GOP bias.
But to reiterate, all the pollsters are guessing. So aggregating seems to be the safest way to smooth out the model discrepancies. (Pollster also effectively aggregates by running a LOESS curve through all polls considered as separate data points.)
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:58 PM
Requiring and IQ test to vote may not turn out like you would like. You should read David Brook's NYT opinion piece. PS David Brooks is a conservative.
Where is boomshak? boomy, boomy, boomy :-)!!!
Well, it's not just how the economy is doing...but it's about standing on principle...who cares about how the economy is doing if we are giving tens of billions of dollars to welfare queens driving cadillacs...
And I'd rather engage in nuclear war with russia than take the p*ssy approach of engaging with Putin diplomatically...makes the USA look weak.
Posted on October 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Education and GOP support are not correlated, once adjusted for income. The main reason income and GOP voting are correlated is that GOP policies tend to protect the incomes of higher income individuals, not because of their tendency to have higher education. In fact, once you adjust for income, the relationship between education and partisanship disappears. Do you want bibliography regarding this?
Obama is up 8 now in Missouri!! 51 - 43
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:00 PM
David Brooks may be a conservative but he's no Ann Coulter.
alankeyesisawesome IDIOT. Do facts elude you? Let's look at presidential economic history DEM and Republican. Hmmm who were the TOP 3 presidents per FORBES?
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:01 PM
These polls confirm what we read in the NYT this morning, the race is stabilizing, minds are pretty much made up by now, and further movement will be minor.
The situation is superficially like the latter end of the primary season, when the numbers were all but inevitable for BHO.
The difference now is that Obama has the momentum and is not just coasting. Look for him to increase his lead in both FL and OH - without which JMC doesn't have a prayer.
The postmortem on JMC's campaign will be interesting - the biggest single misjudgement will probably be he overplayed the Hillary angle: The Palin pick was a credibility disaster, and going negative (like Hillary) during the financial turmoil lost him the indies.
Ok now I am finally in on the joke with "alankeyesisawesome". It's got to be a joke - especially with this line:
"And I'd rather engage in nuclear war with russia than take the p*ssy approach of engaging with Putin diplomatically...makes the USA look weak."
Nobody wants a nuclear war. Nobody. So now I know that "alankeyesisawesome" is just being sarcastic.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:02 PM
Obama is up 8 now in Missouri!! 51 - 43...
I'm pretty sure "alankeyes" is f-ing with you guys.
alankeyesisawesome "Id rather engage in Nuclear war with Russia." WOW. You just summed up your intelligence. No more posts from you.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:03 PM
Registered Voters (2,783)
Obama 51 (50)
McCain 41 (43)
Obama +7 to +10
Likely Voters - Model I (2,133)
Obama 51 (50)
McCain 44 (46)
Obama +4 to +7
Likely Voters - Model II (2,284)
Obama 53 (51)
McCain 43 (45)
Obama +6 to +10
If Ann Coulter is who you depend upon to get acurate information, then never mind about reading David Brooks. You wouldn't undertand him.
Alan Keyes (my personal hero) would have won Illinois if it were not for the liberal media. There wasn't enough exposure to Keyes, and it seems that most people in the state were not even aware that he has a great singing voice.
Welfare queens? You mean bankers? The real estate industry? If you add the cost of just two private sector debacles, the savings and loan crisis and the current one (which you no doubt will blame on "goverment"), there is no amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in government that comes close to the cost of these. Take your bargain-basement GOP propaganda and try it out on the yokels at another website. You're quaint retorts are out of date. Welfare queens? You're an idiot, the welfare reform act of 1996, by the way, practically got rid of all that stuff, exaggerated as it always was. Our real welfare queens are the corporate pigs who've been feeding at the tax benefit trough for the past fifty years.
Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia will be released at 3PM PST / 6PM EST today per Rasmussen. Should be interesting!
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:06 PM
Surely you've been jesting. Ciao bene, comrade
My fellow Democrats, this thing is far from over. You'd all do well to go and read the article in yesterday's NYT about polling: Over polling young and educated voters, the embarrassment of admitting you'd vote for McCain but actually voting for him in the booth, and the Bradley affect.
Basically, younger, educated, liberal people tend to want to answer surveys, whereas the less educated and/or racist people tend to keep to themselves and not answer surveys. And that its possible that McCain has become such a loser that people are afraid to admit that they would vote for him to a pollster but then will actually vote for him on election day when no one is asking. And then of course the old Bradley affect argument. The NYT gives less credence to this notion than the 'embarrassed to admit I'm voting for McCain' phenomenon.
Check it out.
I'm one of those people who doesn't think Obama has this thing locked up. We have to stay focused. No more gloating.
Economic indicators can say whatever you want them to say...and I think while Forbes is a republican, he has sour grapes against the GOP because he was never able to get into the Presidency. I could post some articles from World Net Daily that say that the economy performed the best under Reagan.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Palin to campaign in Indiana
Posted: 01:00 PM ET
From CNN's Rebecca Sinderbrand and Peter Hamby
Palin will head to Indiana at the end of the week.
Palin will head to Indiana at the end of the week.
(CNN) – Sarah Palin will campaign in Indiana for the first time Friday, the latest sign this once solidly-red state could be up for grabs this year.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has already visited the state once, speaking at a law enforcement conference in Indianapolis this summer. Palin’s visit will also be in the Indianapolis area, the McCain-Palin campaign confirmed.
The Democratic ticket has visited the state half a dozen times. Last week, Barack Obama drew an estimated crowd of more than 20,000 at the state fairgrounds.
McCain held a 47 to 45 percent advantage over Obama in the most recent CNN poll of polls out of Indiana, which has only voted for a Democratic presidential candidate once since 1936: the state supported Lyndon Johnson for president in 1964.
The Republican ticket is spending Monday stumping in two other traditionally-Republican states turned battlegrounds: Virginia and North Carolina.
Conclusion: McTitanic is heading straight to the Obama iceberg. Let's cross our fingers that McTitanic will hit it on Nov 4th and sinks accordingly
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Agreed. Though the spread figure is slightly more volatile than Obama's support of 50-51%, which seems very solid indeed. Even more worrying for McCain is his inability to break 44% among LV in these tracker aggregations, however performed.
nick-socal relax:) America isn't watching our comments on pollster.com LOL Are you a bi-polar kid? You seem so UP and DOWN.
The RCP map without toss-ups now has Obama 364, McCain 174. MO flipped to Obama. The only states left for Mccain where RCP still has the map red in states where posters on this web site are suggesting a possible Obama victory are ND, IN
With toss-up states RCP has Obama 277, McCain 158, Toss-up 103 (NV, CO, MO, IN, OH, WV, NC and FL.
This so funny... drudge has the link to the gallup poll... of yesterday! When they said that the lead was narrowing...
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:09 PM
I know that, but (regarding likely voters) what I'm trying to get a sense of is whether pollsters are picking up similar numbers to past elections, or different numbers that they are ignoring because they don't fit their past models. Because most pollsters are so closed about their methods it's hard to tell this.
And btw, this can be an area where aggregation fails badly. The principle behind aggregation, after all is that all errors are either random sampling errors or random modeling errors. Most people, I think, are familiar with the idea that not all sampling errors are truly random (this is the issue viz-a-viz cell phones, for example). What I don't know is whether modeling errors may likewise have a systematic error (i.e., bias), which would happen for instance if all the pollsters made the same underlying mistake about their likely voter model.
States with better education systems tend towards blue, worse education systems tend towards red. So if providing a good education tends to make more democrats, would this explain why republicans like to under fund education?
Krugman Wins Economics Nobel!!!:-)
I just read it :-) A good day for liberals across America.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:10 PM
"You're quaint retorts are out of date."
I'm sure you mean "Your."
And I don't doubt that a community organizer who has worked in the south side of chicago would hesitate throwing money at these inner city welfare slums, so that debunks your argument.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:11 PM
@PortlandRock: Just read the article I referenced and leave your personal attacks out of this.
McTitanic is campaigning right now in North Carolina
It's an indisputable proof that McTitanic is sinking slowly but surely
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:12 PM
Hmm.... Can anyone point me to where I can find the demographics on this poll? I can find it on most any other poll out there but not Gallup polls.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:13 PM
We WERE exposed to Alan Keyes. That's why he got 28% of the vote.
We also were exposed to Barack Obama and he recived 72% of the vote.
Wow, nicksocal is still concern trolling over the Bradley Effect and even citing a paper that basically (though reluctantly) admitted that it had no basis?
Sorry Nicky, it's a load of Malarkey. Over at RCP, Bradley's own pollster said that his internal polling showed no Bradley Effect, and on top of there being no evidence for this phenomenon in over two decades, the use of automated polling undermines the whole theory.
You're going to have to find another scare tactic.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:14 PM
Those of you arguing with AlanKeyesIsAwesome, you are being trolled.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Usually, Gallup releases its demographics on a weekly basis.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:16 PM
Correct: The pollster of Bradley's opponent said their data never showed the Effect.
Not enough Illinois people must have been exposed if they weren't aware of Alan Keyes' fantastic singing voice...check it out:
By the way, I am aware that this is a news report exposing his talent, but as far as I know, it is the only one.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:18 PM
A Sign McCain is Losing Florida?
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), "who helped deliver Florida for McCain during the primary, said he will be spending more time minding the state's weak economy than campaigning for the Arizona senator in the final weeks before Election Day," according to the Miami Herald.
Said Crist: ''When I have time to help, I'll try to do that."
Crist traveled around the state last week with Gov. Sarah Palin but over the weekend "he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World."
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:19 PM
@TheMarvelousApe: You also need to go and actually read the article instead of assuming you know what it says. Yes, the NYT talked about how the Bradley affect is pretty much nonexistent and I said as much in my post. Go read the article and see for yourself. It talks about over polling young and liberal people and also how a lot of people might be embarrassed to say they are voting for McCain but will actually vote for him.
Those of you gloating are setting yourself up for severe disappointment should Obama not win.
Let the McCain people think that the Bradley effect still exist :-)!!!!
@carl: Ugh I'm not a McCain person! And I actually said the NYT doesn't put a lot of credence into the Bradley affect. They referenced it in their article and I referenced it in my post -- among many other things! -- so that you'd know which article to look for at NYT.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:21 PM
The rest of you on this site clearly have no appreciation for irony. I really liked the comment about Alan Keyes singing. Does he have an album out?
On the topic of this poll, which Gallup LV model will apply this year? Plenty of politicians have pinned their hopes on getting infrequent or younger voters to the polls, and are usually disappointed. Why should this year be different?
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:22 PM
I did read that article and it gave no reasonable grounds for concern other than wild speculation. Zernike, who mostly reports from the Palin camp, was trying to create bogus horse race coverage but even she ended up conceding that there wasn't any concrete basis. You might as well be worried about Obama being abducted by martians.
And Zernike failed to address the obvious point:
Why would people "lie" to a computer by pressing a button?
You can make up all sorts of fantastical reasons to say that McCain is really doing well, but none of them hold water in terms of basic logic and the empirical evidence.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:23 PM
And you're setting yourself up to look like a fool when Obama wins.
Then again, it is suspicious that you seem to have invested so much of your ego in an Obama defeat...
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:24 PM
@drdr: I agree and most people here have no appreciation for actual discussions that aren't just a pep rally for Obama. I'm a Democrat and would love for Obama to win but I'm not taking my victory lap yet. I'd like to actually discuss the campaign.
Setting myself up to look like a fool? Why? Because I asked questions and wanted to discuss things?
I'm supposed to just go rah rah McSink is toast!!!! Otherwise I'm a fool?
Think I'll just be on my way now. I'm not into victory laps before the race is over.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:27 PM
Most of the polls people are looking at don't assume a major uptick in the youth turnout. The polls that do simply represent a best case scenario, but even the worst case scenarios are sufficient at this point. The idea that "Obama is depending on youth turnout" is a debunked right-wing talking point.
Actual discussion revolves around reason and empirical data, not purely speculative bogeyman that you use to scare people into ignoring the hard numbers.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:28 PM
Amazon.com doesn't show anything in the music category, which is unfortunate.
My 3rd cousin does work in the mailroom at Universal Records in Santa Monica, CA....maybe I should see if he could pull some strings with the execs there to have him signed.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:29 PM
You're setting yourself up to look like a fool by scolding people who rely on reason and data instead of debunked pop psychology from the 80's.
There's a difference between being a realistic analyst and being an irrationally pessimistic scold. Right now, realism favors Obama in a big way.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:30 PM
As far as I can tell the differences in voter models are not systematic across polling companies -- this based on the little they do reveal in their cross-tabs and methodology. If this is right, then aggregation should mitigate not reinforce the errors.
That said, we really won't know until Nov 4.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:31 PM
"Those of you gloating are setting yourself up for severe disappointment should Obama not win." Isn't that just automatically true? If you want something and don't get it, you're disappointed?
Not sure what that has to do with this situation though. Should I instead wish for McBush to win so I can be happy when he doesn't?
A couple of weeks back, you were telling us how you wanted Obama to win but you knew McBush would be back ahead in the polls a week later. Instead, the polling divide has only widened.
Let me give you a few facts. I live in Arizona, in a wealthy suburb. It should be a McBush haven. In 2004, every third house had a Bush sign and half of the cars had Bush bumper stickers. I have not seen a SINGLE McBush sign here, and very few bumper stickers. I've seen many Obama ones.
I was in Kansas this weekend, in Overland Park. Republican state, Republican area. Very few signs of McBush. TONS of Obama bumper stickers and signs. I'm sure Obama won't win Kansas, but the coverage was noticeable.
I have plenty of friends that are Republicans and plenty that are Democrats. I don't have a single Democratic friend that is voting for McBush (one voted for Bush in 2004). I don't have any Independent friends voting for McBush. I do, however, have about five friends that voted for Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and will vote Obama in 2008. I also have about five friends that voted for Bush TWICE and are voting for Obama.
Could something still happen to change up the race? Sure, absolutely. That's the nature of the beast. And we all need to vote. And Obama needs to close out with a strong GOTV machine that he's been building.
But nothing, not one thing, realistically points to the idea that the polls are undersampling Republicans and McBush support. Nothing. We can still be worried that a world event might change the conversation or that Obama gets caught in some late-game scandal. But if the election were held today, he would win, and handily. That's what the polls are telling you, and they aren't wrong.
There is such a thing as a healthy dose of realism, but it seems like every time you post on these boards, it's "I'm for Obama and I think McBush is still going to win this thing."
If you really are an Obama supporter and not a Republican Troll/Plant, then just make sure you do your part to get your friends to vote, and everything will be fine. It's not like California was going to go for McBush anyway.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:32 PM
And there's no point to all your fear-mongering either. Let's say martians do beam down from space and give McCain a +10% boost on election day. What are we supposed to do about it? If you are going to irrationally insist that Obama's lead is illusory, then we're just kind of screwed.
So you see, you are just stoking pointless fear with no basis in the data. It makes for uninteresting conversation.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:34 PM
With the clintons on the obama campaign trail this week, the lead should widen..
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:40 PM
McCain in North Carolina, yeah baby, next up Goergia then Alabama and next stop 1600 Penn Avenue Yeah Baby Yeah.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:44 PM
About the IQ test crap, states that voted for Kerry have a average higher IQ than states that voted Bush almost without exception.
Posted on October 13, 2008 2:56 PM
C'mon people. Alankeyesisawesome is clearly a satire of a troll. Either ignore or play along. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:00 PM
The Gallup LV-1 uses the traditional LV screen, while LV-2 is simply self-identified LVs. My guess is that the actual voters will be somewhere in between the two, but judging from the "enthusiasm" gap between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, I think that this year's actual voters are closer to LV-2 than LV-1.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:03 PM
So much for McCain's big surge. Now he can go back to stumbling around the stage and trying to fly at the next debate, as he did at the last.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:08 PM
Yes it was your, not you're. It is indisputable that the most rapid run-up in American prosperity was in the 1945-1965 period. Reagan's period was a mediocre period, although not all of it was his doing. He was saddled with the Fed's restraint policy, coming out of the commodity-induced inflation in the mid-70s produced most notably by the Arab oil boycott. However, he did blow the budget to hell as well as generated gobs of national debt, doubling it during his administration. In fact Reagan produced as much national debut during his eight years than nearly all of the previous U.S. history. Them's the facts, Jack.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:50 PM
McCain abandons plan for new tax cuts
"On Sunday, hours before attending a big strategy meeting at McCain campaign headquarters, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that McCain was planning “a very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy, by allowing capital to be formed easier in America by lowering taxes."
But when the meeting ended, so did plans for a new economy push. The campaign now says no new policy announcements are planned. Participants in the meeting refused to say what happened.
“We’re locked down,” said one official.
Politico reported McCain advisers' descriptions of the plan in articles on Saturday and Sunday.
Jackie Calmes of The New York Times, who first reported the plan’s collapse on Sunday night, pointed to “internal confusion” about the matter.
The news dismayed McCain supporters and surrogates, who had thought the fresh policy would help him gain traction on the campaign’s most vital issue, and dilute the impression that he was relying solely on attacks in the home stretch."
No comment needed.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:53 PM
Boom shake shake shake the room BOOM!
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:55 PM
As an old fart, I can say that the youtube thing was great. I'm glad to have survived long enough to benefit from this kind of stuff. It's pretty amazing.
Posted on October 13, 2008 3:58 PM
I hope I'm wrong but I feel the antichrist is here. Nostradomus predicted that he would be born in the 1960's and come to power in his 40's. He will rise from obsurity and have masses of blind followers. He will promise to solve all the WORLDS problems. He will be from Africa but have yellow skin. His name equates to 666. His right hand man is actually named Mabus. There are many other signs. Go to youtue or google and search "obama antichrist"
I'm really scared. Hope I'm either wrong or crazy.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:04 PM
@OBAMA IS MABUS
Now I know I need to concentrate on my work. That post really made me laugh. Very cute. Problem is the Anti-Christ is supposed to be Jewish, and we know that Obama is an Arab and Moslem. :-), as you say.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:08 PM
Obama was born muslim. He practices black liberation religion, which is against the covenant of Jesus Christ (antichrist).
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:12 PM
Bull****. Obama's father was a Muslim, and Obama met him once in his life. And actually by the time his mother met his father, he had become a atheist, so that argument falls flat as well.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:16 PM
you are right Obama father was a Muslim, thats my point. Obama was conceived in an adultrey relationship.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:22 PM
For "Obama is Mabus!"
You said: "Hope I'm either wrong or crazy."
Good news; you are crazy. Get that straight jacket ready.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:24 PM
For 20 years he has practiced black liberation religion, which hates all white people, it basically blames whites for all sins committed against blacks. This religion is against the covenant of Jesus Christ. If you doubt me just try this little test....Do you think Jesus would approve of Rev. Wright saying things like God damn America or talking about being called a nigger plus all of the other hate speech. What would Jesus really do. If you do not believe in Jesus then you do not believe in God or the Bible. You must accept all if you accept one, ask yourself that question. You don't have to answer to me.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:29 PM
I agree with you - we should take these polls with a grain of salt, realizing that there are myriad factors at play here, any of which may account for discrepancies between real votes and the polls.
I appreciate your insight and your prudence, and do not think that the others here should be picking on you or calling you names simply for playing the devil's advocate.
That being said, lets take a cold hard look at the facts:
In the polls, Obama is leading by an average of 8 points.
1) Assume that oversampling youth voters accounts
for a 2-3 point bias in favor of Obama.
2) Assume that underpolling new voters and cell phones accounts for a 2-3 point bias in favor of McCain.
Hence, 1 & 2 cross each other out.
3) Assume that people lying to the pollster accounts for another 2-3 points in favor of Obama.
4) Assume that the furor over the economy dies down a bit over the last few weeks, which might mean that we can shave off another 2-3 points off Obama's lead.
Hence, come November 4th, Obama should still win, but by a 1-2 point margin, and nothing like 8-10 points.
This may translate into roughly 300 EVs.
That's good enough.
A win is a win.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:32 PM
We already know that Rev Wright is not a true man of god by his own acts adultery. Plus the bible tells us that no man is allowed to damn anyone in the name of the Lord. Not even Rev Wright. Go ahead and call me crazy but this i'm very sure about.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:34 PM
Obama is Mabus-
Jesus would invade Iraq and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!
VOTE McCain/Palin 08! (If you love Jesus)
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:35 PM
I must object vigorously. The anti-Christ is supposed to be Jewish. People are always picking on Jews. Jews got the honor of being the anti-Christ and ain't no one gonna take it from them. Obama is Mabus get outta here. There are millions of Jewish men out there aspiring to be the ant-Christ, and I cannot believe you would take away this honor. It's bad enough that Jews only get to control the world's money supply and all of the media, now you want to steal away the chance of some Jewish fella becoming the anti-Christ? What chutzpah!!!!
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:37 PM
I really don't like McCain that much. But we are talking about Obama who is an actual antichrist. By all signs he may even be the third and final antichrist. Which will bring destruction to the world.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:40 PM
Obama is Mabus:
Fess up and tell us you write for The Office, and you are just taking a break.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:42 PM
@obama is mabus:
perhaps you did not see Mark Blumetnthal's post earlier (in a different string), but Mark warned that he might ban people who were discussing stuff not even remotely related to polling.
Please stop with this "Obama is the Anti-Christ" rubbish, because it is racially offensive and untrue.
Really? Did I miss the Rapture? God dammit! I was counting on that!
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:43 PM
McCain committed adultery; so I take it you are voting for.....????
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:44 PM
What a dumbass..... Oh no! Some guy he met once in his life was a Muslim at some point! Oh no!
There will be two beast one will rise from the land the other from the sea.
EVERYONE-CLEARLY OBAMA IS MABUS IS ALANKEYSISAWESOME. FUGGEDIABOUDIT. TIME TO LOGOFF AND WAIT TO SEE HOW MUCH NARROWING TAKES PLACE OVER THE NEXT THREE DAYS. LET'S GET READY FOR OBAMA CRUSHING MCCAIN ON WEDNESDAY AND LET'S GIRD OURSELVES FOR THE INSANE GOP SPIN-MACHINE THEREFAFTER TRYING TO PITCH A KNOCKOUT AS A BLOWOUT.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:48 PM
Yeah I know, and the beast will have seven heads and ten horns etc...etc...
Now its time to go back to your padded cell
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:50 PM
You are all missing the point, but that does surprise me. I really don't care about what McCain has done or if I met a Muslin or any of that. I know obama will win, its in the prophecy. He will serve for three years and four months, then he will suffer a great head injury and recover. When he recovers people will believe that he is a true messiah. This is when all hell literally breaks loose. Only christians will be able to see thru his lies and will be pursecuted and punished as a result. Just keep our Lord Jesus Christ as your only messiah.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:55 PM
Everything that I have said is in the Bible. You don't have to believe me, doesnt matter if I am crazy or not.
Posted on October 13, 2008 4:58 PM
This is my final post here, thank you all for your time. God bless you all.
Posted on October 13, 2008 5:11 PM
as taps plays in the background.....
Posted on October 13, 2008 5:15 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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