Quote :

"^ Unless they already corrected for it, i'd think those numbers are at least 3-4% off just because they are exit polls."

1) point?
2) 3-4% which way. why would exit polls lean one way or another
3) even so, the trend is still clear. Rich people do not seem to have any particular aversion to Obama, regardless of how much he is going to raise their taxes



[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2008 4:26:06 PM

^ that's because a lot of rich people also happen to be educated, and educated people typically lean left.

11/6/2008 4:27:55 PM

Wat

Obama did much better with the poor than the rich

People in academia typically lean left. People in business typically lean right. You'll be hard-pressed to prove that one group is more educated than the other.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : 2]

11/6/2008 4:29:44 PM

^ we would be hard pressed to show that richer people are typically more educated than poor people? uhh.... i don't think that would be too hard to show


my overall point is - it seems like an amazing amount of people who whine and bitch about Obama/Democrats taxing the rich are themselves lower or middle class.

11/6/2008 4:33:37 PM

Quote :

"we would be hard pressed to show that richer people are typically more educated than poor people?"

Say what? Is this a reading comprehension issue or are you purposefully misinterpreting what I just posted?

Quote :

"it seems like an amazing amount of people who whine and bitch about Obama/Democrats taxing the rich are themselves lower or middle class."

I think that shows that a lot of these people (including me) are worried about the economic ramifications of a tax increase on the rich at a time when we are mired in a worsening recession. Not everybody votes purely based on the immediate effect on their pocketbook. I'm more worried about the future, and how the hell the US will pull out of this mess. It won't come from burdening investors and businesses with higher taxes.

[Edited on November 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 2]

11/6/2008 4:35:06 PM

the latter, actually.

however, you seem to be implying that >$200k group would be split between academics and businesspeople, accounting for the Obama/McCain split.
I call bullshit on that one too, as most academics would be falling into the 75-150 groups, which are even lower pro-Obama than the 200+ group

11/6/2008 4:37:23 PM

My issue is how moron can look at a graph, and interpret the dumbest shit from it. No matter what the evidence points to, he claims that it supports whatever progressive ideal he holds most dearly. He should really be a sociologist the way he interprets anything and everything as evidence of his pre-formed conclusions. I really wonder what it would take for him to actually reexamine his beliefs for once.

11/6/2008 4:41:03 PM

11/6/2008 4:53:53 PM

Quote :

"People in academia typically lean left. People in business typically lean right. You'll be hard-pressed to prove that one group is more educated than the other."

I didn't say anything about people in academia.

11/6/2008 5:01:03 PM

^^
by county

11/6/2008 8:03:14 PM

kinda cool lookin, like a Rorschach thing.

11/6/2008 8:24:19 PM

Quote :

"looks like rich people aren't too worried about Obama taking all their money "

its all the people with blind party loyalty & those who value political ideology over practical reality that make all the noise.

i bet an IQ correlation would look similar.

11/6/2008 8:45:16 PM

here's a good photo-set of Obama and his family and campaign behind the scenes as they were watching McCain's speech, and before Obama's speech.
http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157608716313371/

I think it's great seeing pictures like this when they are being more real and candid and not posing for cameras (even though they were obviously aware someone was taking pictures)

11/6/2008 10:53:59 PM

Quote :

"Democrats still cannot campaign proudly and honestly as who they are. They cannot say, "I am a liberal. I want to expand government control over your lives. I want to raise your taxes and deny you the right to bear arms. And I intend to appease our enemies abroad." So maybe America has not moved to the left. Maybe Obama won for superficial reasons in a country full of voters who don't give politics much deep thought. Given a choice of statists, they went with the charismatic young one. The Republicans have a great thing thing going for them for the next two years: the Democrats control the Presidency, Senate and House. Remember, the Jimmy Carter presidency led to the second best president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. "

Interesting.

11/7/2008 12:55:56 AM

Quote :

"Remember, the Jimmy Carter last Bush presidency led to the second best president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton."

11/7/2008 8:20:17 AM

Hmmm

Most historians would disagree with you there.

FDR, Truman, Ike and JFK are all frequently cited as better Presidents.

11/7/2008 1:09:56 PM

i thought truman left office with like a 20% approval rating?

11/7/2008 1:11:44 PM

History has been kind to the man. In retrospect, a lot of his decisions were visionary.

I wonder how history will treat Bush.

[Edited on November 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM. Reason : 2]

11/7/2008 1:14:13 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/index.html

Quote :

"Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says (CNN) -- A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways."

11/7/2008 3:02:12 PM

LOL.

oh, well, i guess that's all they've got to hold onto.

11/7/2008 3:09:38 PM

lawl anyone hear obama refer to himself as a "mutt" during this press conference

11/7/2008 3:12:04 PM

^ I didn't hear that, but Obama can loosen up a bit now that he's won.

I would even be amused to see Reverend Wright pop back up, but I don't think it'll happen.

11/7/2008 3:14:37 PM

^^Hah, yeah. That and the seance reference were gold.

11/7/2008 3:16:24 PM

e) None of the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYALxUfEmfQ

[Edited on November 8, 2008 at 4:58 AM. Reason : Where was the Libertarian candidate?]

11/8/2008 4:38:23 AM

I think the seance comment would have been better reserved for Hillary...she actually hired people to "channel" Eleanor Roosevelt in the White House.

11/8/2008 7:22:56 AM

Nancy Reagan "consulted astrology" when she was in the White House.

11/8/2008 8:41:14 AM

obama ended up apologizing to nancy

11/8/2008 10:41:47 AM

yeah, that comment could be taken in two ways:
1) commenting on Nancy Reagan's publicized paranormal views, like astrology (this is what I think he was referring to)
2) insinuating that he use a seance to communicate with Ronald Reagan, since he had just said that he had consulted with all living former Presidents.

If he meant it as #1, that something that is true, but it's probably never a good idea to take pot-shots at a former first lady's beliefs. If he meant it as #2, that's very rude and disrespectful to say that about her dead husband.

Either way, it wasn't a devastating comment, but it was certainly not necessary and probably out-of-bounds, and Mrs. Reagan deserved the apology

11/8/2008 9:51:09 PM

Quote :

"History has been kind to the man. In retrospect, a lot of his decisions were visionary. I wonder how history will treat Bush."

I was talking to a roommate about this a week or two ago. It'd be interesting to see what the books say in 100 years.

11/9/2008 4:03:35 AM

11/9/2008 2:13:35 PM

Quote :

" I wonder how history will treat Bush."

ALOT different than now

11/9/2008 2:15:53 PM

How many differents will they allot to him?

Bush's best hope is that he ends up being a forgettable President. There was literally nothing beneficial to come from his presidency.

The only thing remotely resembling success would be winning in Iraq, and decades will give us a better prospective on the whole conflict. He got us into it for illegitimate reasons, it was a bloody mess for years, then we somehow stumbled out of it when the Iraqi people had decided to stop bleeding each other dry. Plus, if preemptive wars become the norm because of Bush's precedent, he'll be that much more worse off.

11/9/2008 2:20:54 PM

we were attacked for the first time since 1942, with an enemy w/o a country

in his first months in office

we havn't been attacked since

weve taken a tyrant out of power, and controlled a country that harbors terrorists

as commander and chief, he will be seen as stellar

economically speaking, we suffered recently, but to blame THAT on him is stupid, if anyone is to blame it is clinton (the boom and bust)

bush was elected twice .. he will go go down in history as a great president .. flame on

11/9/2008 2:30:31 PM

a forgettable president, not great

and definitely not the WORST PRESIDENT EVAARRRR

11/9/2008 2:33:46 PM

we dont forget twice elected presidents

11/9/2008 2:35:34 PM

Quote :

"and controlled a country that harbors terrorists"

lulz

11/9/2008 2:36:20 PM

dont believe everything you read

11/9/2008 2:37:26 PM

Nixon was twice-elected.

And the books have NOT treated him well.

11/9/2008 2:38:26 PM

objection, irrelevant

bush never broke any laws

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 2:39:01 PM

Quote :

"in his first months in office"

In his first eight months of office. I'm not even sure why you think it's important, but I'll squish it if you insist.

Quote :

"we havn't been attacked since"

We weren't attacked by the Soviets during or after McCarthy's trials. That didn't exactly exonerate him, though. We're going to have to uncover some serious evidence that Bush was actually responsible for our safety before he gets credit for that. Especially after he expanded executive power and curtailed our rights.

Quote :

"weve taken a tyrant out of power, and controlled a country that harbors terrorists"

And it only took hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Please. At least during the Cold War we waged illegitimate wars against foreign leaders on the cheap.

Quote :

"bush Nixon, was elected twice .. he will go go down in history as a great president"

I mean, really. Will Clinton go down in history as a great president, too?

11/9/2008 2:40:12 PM

^^Well, yeah. But he IS a notable exception to the rule when it comes to two-term presidents.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 2:41:04 PM

^^ youve lost your mind

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2008 2:41:28 PM

crushing rebuttal.

11/9/2008 2:44:23 PM

no americans have died from terrorism since bush and 9/11


explain


that costs money


what do you want more, freedom or safety

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : SHOW ME A DOWNSIDE TO HANGING SADDAM]

11/9/2008 2:44:23 PM

....

11/9/2008 2:47:08 PM

tough question eh?

11/9/2008 2:48:12 PM

The two are mutually exclusive?

Quote :

"no americans have died from terrorism since bush and 9/11"

Yeah, but we've murdered hundreds of thousands of our own right here on our own shores, and we didn't have to spend billions of additional dollars a week for those deaths. Awesome, huh?

Quote :

"SHOW ME A DOWNSIDE TO HANGING SADDAM"

Removal of a strong dictator who can keep a centuries old conflict in check and replacing that with American lives, money, and political capital would be the biggest downside. You need to just back away from the wolf web today friend. It won' be long before you are spouting more racial epithets and making a mockery of the tke name to the detriment of a few of the brothers that aren't jackasses like yourself.

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2008 2:48:39 PM

Quote :

"Will Clinton go down in history as a great president, too?"

probably

11/9/2008 2:49:05 PM

cry me a river


what americans died


wait

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

hundreds of thousands? of the same people that were being murdered, raped, and left for dead?

[Edited on November 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : are these people still alive?]

11/9/2008 2:49:18 PM

Quote :

"no americans have died from terrorism since bush and 9/11 explain"

Why don't you explain. Apparently law enforcement did its job, as it would've under any other president. We'll have to learn what Bush did to protect us from terrorists that few other presidents would've before he gets any credit.

Quote :

"what do you want more, freedom or safety"

Freedom, you coward.

Quote :

"SHOW ME A DOWNSIDE TO HANGING SADDAM"

11/9/2008 2:50:52 PM