Quote :

"all these polls you guys have are not including nader and barr in the polling its almost a dead heat folks when they are added in the picture"

what? you just made that up

10/9/2008 6:25:11 PM

there are no words for that video.

10/9/2008 6:34:25 PM

The whole part about how his bloodline makes him a terrorist is hilarious.

Meanwhile, everyone of German ancestry is a Nazi.

10/9/2008 6:42:32 PM

sorry to burst your bubble


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html

10/9/2008 6:43:26 PM

obama +4.2?

huh?

10/9/2008 6:45:56 PM

+4 with 29 days to go is a dead heat folks

10/9/2008 6:46:44 PM

interesting

i always assumed dead heat meant......a tie

oh well

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 6:48 PM. Reason : what's the margin or error? couldnt find it]

10/9/2008 6:48:07 PM

doesnt have to be a literal tie to be a dead heat, esp with 4 weeks left


and in the overall poll ... gallup is the only one with this 11+ move for obama

the average of the top 10 is only 5

10/9/2008 6:50:49 PM

yay, RCP. The organization that refuses to show what its methodology is.

10/9/2008 6:53:07 PM

it takes the average of the top 10 most popular national polls

10/9/2008 6:57:18 PM

Hey fratty, you forget the electoral college? Might want to read up on the huge mountain McCain would have to climb to overcome his defecit in that arena.

10/9/2008 7:00:20 PM

No, that is not true.

pollster.com is a much better polling organization.

Plus, the RCP averaged polls half of them are more than two weeks old.

10/9/2008 7:00:49 PM

the rcp polls used to average are accurate as of yesterday

10 of the most used

10/9/2008 7:06:14 PM

lol. you guys are amateurs to following polls. really.

That's RCP's NATIONAL AVERAGE where you read +4 with 29 days to go. Which is actually an eternity.
Zoom in to state by state of what they'd win today and look what you get. Obama already with the EV's to win.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

AND MOST importantly, trending up (for now). Not saying something couldn't change, but there is absolutely nothing dead heat about it. Otherwise, on Intrade, people wouldn't be betting 75% rate that Obama wins. That's real money.

Intrade Market Odds 75.8 24.5 -

RCP Electoral Count 277 158 Obama +119
No Toss Up States 353 185 Obama +168

Battleground States
Colorado 49.3 45.3 Obama +4.0
Ohio 48.8 44.9 Obama +3.9
Florida 48.1 45.6 Obama +2.5
Nevada 49.6 46.6 Obama +3.0
Missouri 47.4 47.8 McCain +0.4
Virginia 50.0 44.9 Obama +5.1



[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 7:10 PM. Reason : - ]

10/9/2008 7:09:10 PM

There are only 4 polls that are averaged. No ten.

you have

Democracy Corps (D)	10/01 - 10/05	1000 LV	48	45	3	2	Obama +3
Associated Press-GfK	09/27 - 09/30	808 LV	48	41	2	1	Obama +7
ABC News/Wash Post	09/27 - 09/29	916 LV	48	45	3	2	Obama +3
Ipsos/McClatchy	09/26 - 09/29	1007 RV	46	42	2	1	Obama +4

10/9/2008 7:10:56 PM

your logic astounds me


polls are so inaccurate ... youre right ... its not saying obamas GOING to win and mccain is GOING to lose

it says ... this shit can go either way

10/9/2008 7:10:56 PM

You are the idiot using RCP.

Also, it won't go either way. Look at the electoral map.

10/9/2008 7:12:56 PM

111 EC votes are toss ups in 8 states

durrr


far from over people

10/9/2008 7:17:04 PM

Obama could lose all the "toss up" states that are left and still win. He already has 274 electoral votes outside of the toss up states.

10/9/2008 7:24:12 PM

Captain gets my vote. He never lets me down

10/9/2008 7:31:45 PM

10/9/2008 7:45:13 PM

Quote :

"Apparently thats not vague, but you think for no given reason that he (Obama) will not implement it. (tax cuts) "

You're dreamin if you think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are going to lower anyone's taxes. I predict a huge tax increase on everyone if they take over. They all have a record of voting more often for tax increases.

And why would you raise taxes on the wealthy during an economic slump? If you take away more of their money, you will cut employment (unless you know some poor people who are hiring). But Obama wants to, not because it's a smart thing to do, but because he thinks it's fair.

Obama says he will lower taxes for 95% of the tax-payers. The bottom 45% don't even pay any income tax.

10/9/2008 7:48:34 PM

Too bad over the last 20 years the GOP has put fiscal conservatism which includes smaller gov't and less taxes on teh backburner (unless it benefits one of their CEO or major stake stock holder buddies). Instead choosing to pursue bull shit issues like christian values, playing world police, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, and worst of all politicians getting blowjobs!!!

10/9/2008 8:12:50 PM

^ So true. The GOP deserves any punishment it gets. But the sad part is that the rest of the country also gets punished with a democrat take-over of the gov't.

10/9/2008 8:23:09 PM

Quote :

"You're dreamin if you think Obama, Reid and Pelosi are going to lower anyone's taxes. I predict a huge tax increase on everyone if they take over. They all have a record of voting more often for tax increases."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html

Quote :

"A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. "

So... I'm not seeing anything about his record that would reflect the contention that he will not cut taxes for the middle- and lower-class.

Quote :

"And why would you raise taxes on the wealthy during an economic slump? "

Because they're the ones hurting the least. Once this bailout plan starts to take effect, their investments should start to grow again, so they'll be just fine. Meanwhile, the tax cuts will take some of the pain off of the millions of people struggling to make ends meet.

Quote :

"If you take away more of their money, you will cut employment (unless you know some poor people who are hiring)."

If the tax increase forces layoffs then the compay is in the shitter anyway.

10/9/2008 8:38:03 PM

Oh Oh...Obama- a member of a radical socialist party?

Quote :

"Thomas Lifson: Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land. The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success"

10/9/2008 8:43:49 PM

10/9/2008 8:44:58 PM

Quote :

"greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process"

I guess if you keep heaping bullshit on top of bullshit it starts to gain some structural integrity if you have low enough building standards.

10/9/2008 8:53:29 PM

^
Could be. Let's see if the story gets legs.

10/9/2008 9:07:14 PM

WHATEVER YOU DO

DON'T FORGOT

THEM THURR COMMIE DEMOCRATS WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES

AND THATS A FACT

GIT THURR DUN!

10/9/2008 9:53:19 PM

Some of this is starting to sound very familiar. I remember how adamant some Ron Paul supporters were that he had a chance. It was fun to watch them back the efficacy of an online CNN poll that showed Ron Paul "winning" a primary debate by 30% over his nearest competitor. In the same sentence they'd blast the polls showing him having 2% support among likely primary voters.

Great stuff.

10/9/2008 9:57:37 PM

i heard somewhere like almost 100% of mccains ads were negative somewhere...as opposed to 34% of obamas ads...but then like mccains wife is all like "obama is running a negative campaign"

10/9/2008 11:52:54 PM

Most of the MCcAin ads i've seen have been negative, but the only ads of his i've seen are the ones they discuss in the media.

Obama has been running a relatively clean campaign, and for the past month or so, they haven't made any missteps. If Obama wins, it would have been very well earned.

10/10/2008 12:23:36 AM

Obama speaks in more detail about his relationship with the turrist:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ (Oct. 9th entry)

10/10/2008 12:25:04 AM

OK.

So McCain campaigns to lower gov't spending, then proposes a mortgage bailout that would let the mortgage lenders gain on the taxpayers' dime. Gov't buys up the loans for the adjusted value (most higher than they are actually worth) and we pay.

So they want to talk about "terrorist ties" when the economy is crap. He (and most supporters) talk about smaller gov't, then propose this $300+ billion mortgage thing out of nowhere. This, of course, on top of the existing bailout. Can people really support this?

He wants to give a $5000 credit for health care? Really? When my wife and I were buying our own coverage, it was about $700-800/month. My credit would be used up in 6 months or so. Thanks, but no thanks. Then on top of that, he wants to tax work-provided coverage as income?! Then he stated (in writing) that the tax collected from that would go directly to the health insurance providers?! I just don't understand how anyone could support McCain, even if you just looked at those issues alone.

Amazing. Personal attacks are usually evidence that you are running out of options and are desperate. By no means is Obama perfect. But dammit people... a tax on health care benefits? Come on.

10/10/2008 4:51:04 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-the-peculiar-tragedy-of-this-flawed-hero-john-mccain-956553.html

Quote :

"What made McCain look so weak and hopeless on Tuesday wasn't just the combination of pallor, jerkiness, the tonsure and the contrast between how, when not speaking, Obama sat with commanding tranquillity, whereas McCain paced anxiously in the background like someone in a hurry who cannot remember where he parked the car."

10/10/2008 7:21:06 AM

^^^^ Of course Obama's ads have been clean. He's got all of his buddies in the news media to sling mud for him.

Quote :

"yay, RCP. The organization that refuses to show what its methodology is."

you mean kind of like James Hansen? Or the proponents of the original hockey stick? Seems to me that you have no problem believing people who won't disclose their methodologies when it suits your agenda

10/10/2008 7:58:22 AM

Quote :

"Obama has been running a relatively clean campaign, and for the past month or so, they haven't made any missteps. If Obama wins, it would have been very well earned."

-moron

What is your definition of a clean campaign? If you mean not engaging in character attacks, that is false.

Obama and his campaign have several times implied that his Republican opponents are racist or at least willing to play off people's racist fears. For example, when he told a crowd that his opponent would try and scare them by reminding them he has a "funny name" and "doesn't look like other presidents". Guess what? His campaign now admits he was talking about his race.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=5495348&page=1

If you mean they don't engage in guilt-by-association attacks, that is also false. They have attacked McCain for his associations with George Bush (did you hear he's unpopular?), Phil Gramm (he called americans whiners!), his "connections" to lobbyists on his campaign (never mind Obama himself employees former lobbyists on his campaign), and on and on and on.

If you mean that Obama hasn't obsessed over irrelevant issues that don't matter to "real Americans", I can only ask you...how many houses does John McCain own?

The truth is that you just have confirmation bias. You remember the thing that confirm your set beliefs (that Obama is a "new kind of politician") and ignore the stories that don't. McCain has not done anything in this campaign that Obama himself has not done (indeed, Obama was the one to go negative first, just ask John Dickerson at Slate). And the fact that you think otherwise shows you just have not been keeping up.

It also shows that no matter what Obama does to John McCain, you will either forget it or dismiss it as a "necessary evil" (kinda like Republican hacks did back in 2000 for GW). So I'm not sure why I'm even discussing this with you. It's not like you'll be able to effectively respond. These are the facts. And you just don't fucking care.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 8:36 AM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 8:23:47 AM

pot calling a kettle black. Socks, for you to harp on someone else for having confirmation bias is a real treat.

Anyhow, I digress from what I came here to post. Two fresh polls this morning. Obama up by 8 in Florida is

Strategic Vision - Oct 10
-------------------
Florida
Obama 52
McCain 44

Ohio
Obama 48
McCain 46

10/10/2008 8:49:32 AM

How long before McCain (well probably Palin) blames this on Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/acorn.fraud.claims/index.html

10/10/2008 8:55:40 AM

Kainen

How many posts have you or moron made criticizing Obama???? I can remember a couple you made on not liking Obama's energy plan and I think moron agreed. But that's pretty much it. Any more than that probably came at my own urging.

I, on the other hand, have made at least two entire threads about my disagreements with John McCain. And I have posted multiple times in multiple other threads about other specific disagreements.

Just because I support John McCain doesn't mean I have blinded myself from his faults. You and moron should take notes.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 9:00 AM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 8:59:25 AM

See the ACORN thread man. This shit comes up every 4 years and it's all a bunch of crap.

10/10/2008 8:59:25 AM

Take notes eh? That's rich. Your disagreements with McCain were pretty diminutive...and usually you gave him the benefit of the doubt each time. I do the same thing.

Not just on Obama's energy plan, I've criticized him for over-intellectualizing things, not being fluent and descriptive nor detailed enough with many of his policies. I criticized him for voting for FISA, and not having the cajones to stand up to it. I've criticized him for being stupid to associate with flame brands like Jermiah Wright when he damn well knew the trouble potential that is, he should have been smarter than that (even though I still don't think Obama is a real christian - I think he's agnostic or something like that).

I've also made fun of him for starting every sentence with 'Well look" (which is annoying). Haha.

10/10/2008 9:05:35 AM

yeah sometimes it makes him sound like he's talking down to people.

10/10/2008 9:06:50 AM

Quote :

"Obama purchasing 30 minutes of network airtime Posted: 06:55 PM ET (CNN) – Barack Obama is buying 30 minutes of airtime on the major television networks just days before the presidential election, the Obama campaign confirms. Sources with the Obama campaign say half hour blocks have been purchased on Wednesday, October 29 on CBS and NBC. The campaign is also in negotiations with Fox, though that day will conflict with the World Series if there is a game 6. The buy was first reported by the Hollywood reporter earlier Thursday. Evan Tracey of Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on ad spending, said it was unclear how much the blocs of air would cost, but noted 30 seconds alone in primetime usually runs between $80,000 and $125,000. "This is a big platform, this is a big megaphone, the interest level is clearly there and people will watch," Tracey said."

Sweet Jesus that's a lot of $$$$$$


(Not sure if it was already posted, but I didnt see it.)

10/10/2008 9:24:29 AM

Quote :

"I've also made fun of him for starting every sentence with 'Well look" (which is annoying). Haha."

Yeah, almost as bad as McCain incessantly using the phrase "My friends." Talk about patronizing right?

10/10/2008 9:54:57 AM

Quote :

"I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."

-John McCain in 2000

(but he hasn't changed....definitely not)

10/10/2008 10:07:40 AM

^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHUlA7Oe9YY

-I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

10/10/2008 10:09:12 AM

Quote :

"Take notes eh? That's rich. Your disagreements with McCain were pretty diminutive...and usually you gave him the benefit of the doubt each time. I do the same thing."

Well, yah! If I had huge disagreements with him I simply wouldn't vote for him. But saying that my disagreements are small is not the same as simply ignoring those disagreements.

moron is apparently ignoring any instance where Obama used the exact same "negative" tactics as McCain. Either he has not been following the election at all or he is suffering from confirmation bias. I really don't see a middle ground on this one. Those are really the only two possibilities.

[Edited on October 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ``]

10/10/2008 10:13:20 AM

Quote :

"Obama and his campaign have several times implied that his Republican opponents are racist or at least willing to play off people's racist fears. For example, when he told a crowd that his opponent would try and scare them by reminding them he has a "funny name""

Funny how he was exactly right about that. But you call that a baseless character attack.

10/10/2008 10:52:03 AM