I read today that Colin Powell has endorsed Obama. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Powell is a great man, thought so before he broke ranks from the party even - and his statement pretty much hit on all the points of how I feel about how the Republican party has been going the past 8 yrs or so.
As I've read elsewhere - it's really more and more turning into the Rush Limbaugh party more so than the small government, privacy-minded fiscal conservatives that most of us old farts signed on with the party as.
He is really a well-spoken intelligent man - it's a shame that his party tossed him on the railroad tracks however, I was hopeful for him for a long time to be a Pres/VP option for the Republicans to get them back on track.
Addition:
Looks like some of the McCain supporters are wising up to get the nutjobs quiet at the very least - maybe there's hope for the party getting back on track with SANE Americans like these around to keep the nutjobs in check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl2EndLZv7w (Note: All McCain supporters there - good to see people that actually understand what our country is about standing up to the Rush-inspired fools)
For all of you that refer to "The last 8 years" as a bad thing and that think bush as done such a crappy job seriously lets look at the facts
1) Bush was president for a year, then 9/11 happened. I dare you to watch the planes crash into the towers, see how you feel about the war then.
2) YOU ALL REELECTED BUSH, even if you hated bushes guts you can only bash him for the economic down turn of the last 2-3 years.
3) Bush is clearly not an idiot. He is just not well articulated.
4) Bush is a good man who made a couple mistakes which lead to things becoming out of his control. (See funding the war and the democrats gaining control of congress)
5) The election is obamas thats just the way it is, whoever ran mccains camp into the ground was the man to lose it mccain is just not that man.
1) Bush was president for a year, then 9/11 happened. I dare you to watch the planes crash into the towers, see how you feel about the war then.
Okay.
Alright I just watched it. Now am I supposed to still be irrationally racist and support the invasion of Iraq? Cuz I'm not.
Unless you're talking about Afghanistan, but you said "the war", and "the" war usually refers to Iraq I've found.
2) YOU ALL REELECTED BUSH, even if you hated bushes guts you can only bash him for the economic down turn of the last 2-3 years.
Even those who voted against him in '04? Yeah that makes sense.
3) Bush is clearly not an idiot. He is just not well articulated.
From Wikipedia:
"[At Yale] He was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00."
"In May 1968, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard, after scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test."
I know someone who went to Yale with Bush in the same class. He put it this way; there are two kinds of people who get into Yale, those who study hard and get the grades and those who get in for their name. At Yale, there were also two types of student; the scholastically excellent student, and the party kid that can barely be called a student. Bush was part of the latter in both cases, according to him.
4) Bush is a good man who made a couple mistakes which lead to things becoming out of his control. (See funding the war and the democrats gaining control of congress)
Wow, way to diminish the CHOICE to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a good man? Do you know him personally? Better yet, does this even matter when analyzing him as a political figure?
5) The election is obamas thats just the way it is, whoever ran mccains camp into the ground was the man to lose it mccain is just not that man.
We'll never know, huh?
Seriously, your post is just full of ridiculous assertions that aren't supported objectively at all.
Your reasons for backing up bush are truly pathetic, anyone who is smart alerady thinkgs hes doing a terrible job. The 20% (according to national polls) that think he is doing a good job clearly lack any deep intelligence. You think the last 8 years have been just fine. Sure they were ok when you look in the scope of the present. But when you look in the scope of the future, him and his party have backed the US into an economic and military corner, and spent us out of house and home. He doubled the national debt. Something that has never been done before. You really think the economic crisis came out of the blue? Please think before you talk.
Sure 9/11 sucked real hard. But that dosen't give us the right to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq). If you want to stop Bin Laden he is hiding in the hills of pakistan, the military leaders already know this. Do you even know the agendas of the war? You really come across as a stubborn republican that does not know much about politics so tries to fight facts with "he's a good man".
For all of you that refer to "The last 8 years" as a bad thing and that think bush as done such a crappy job seriously lets look at the facts
Point #1 - I never referred to Bush, I referred to the last 8 years, he had his part to play in things, but overall I'd put most of the blame people would lay at his feet on his advisors. But an even larger part goes on the RNC and the party in general that has completely changed it's tune since Clinton. Pre-Clinton and Post-Clinton the Republican PARTY barely resembles itself.
His history showed him to have a great approach to taking input from others in making his decisions, which can be a great thing if you don't have evil manipulative folks pulling the strings. (Or at least the intelligence to weigh things out before making a final decision)
1) Bush was president for a year, then 9/11 happened. I dare you to watch the planes crash into the towers, see how you feel about the war then.
I helped feed and otherwise assisted the gentlemen digging out the rubble on day 3 to day 7 (including my cousin who's a firefighter here in MD, he got up there on day 2 and stuck around til it was done - unfortunately my career only was OK with giving me the 4 days to help out) - you don't need to remind me what happened.
But I don't forget about the FACT that Iraq had a tenuous connection AT BEST when all the intelligence was pointing that way - it's ridiculous that we took all the effort in Afghanistan that they were obviously retaliating against and ignored that to start up a second war that some fools still seem to think was connected - when it wasn't in any way, shape or form.
3) Bush is clearly not an idiot. He is just not well articulated.
He's a Lincoln - Lincoln was a relatively inexperienced and not the brightest guy around but he put together a great Cabinet that balanced out his flaws. Unfortunately Bush's Cabinet wasn't a beneficial co-existance.
4) Bush is a good man who made a couple mistakes which lead to things becoming out of his control. (See funding the war and the democrats gaining control of congress)
Both of those I would place squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party, he's just the common scapegoat to many because of his position at the top. Personally, I'd lay that blame at Rush and the other ridiculously right-wing pundits that are forming a rift between the neo-cons and the true conservatives.
5) The election is obamas thats just the way it is, whoever ran mccains camp into the ground was the man to lose it mccain is just not that man.
Right, but McCain should've been smart enough to say "You're an idiot - this is the worst campaign ever - get out" - that's what a Maverick should and would do when presented with that problem.
I honestly think that McCain has been mostly phoning it in since the VP nomination - he was pumped to go forward before the RNC convention - but afterwards he just seemed unmotivated, spirit broken when he wasn't allowed to pick Lieberman for his VP.
I think he sees the bad turns in his campaign strategies that they're putting together and he just doesn't care anymore and just wants it to be over. Even more as I see him and his care seems to wane more, more of the "real McCain" of 2000 shows to me. He's a great man at heart, but he got absolutely hijacked into a type of campaigning his heart just wasn't into and it really shows.
I read today that Colin Powell has endorsed Obama. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
I find it funny that one of the reasons we're in Iraq a second time is endorsing someone whose policies may cause, or at least would have caused, us to be in Iraq a third time.
I have no high opinion of Powell. The fact that he's apparently a hero confuses me. Then again, we all love JFK for reasons that are completely beyond me, so it may be that expecting sanity amongst our choice of heroes is waiting for a bus that won't come.
It's pretty clear the American people want Obama to win. Why? I have no idea. Will the Obama presidency be a disaster? Of course it will, but the American people want it and that's how we roll in America.
Far as I'm concerned, barring some kind of a miracle, there's no way for McCain to win. I admire the tenacity of the people who are holding out for the miracle, but I just don't see it coming.
2) YOU ALL REELECTED BUSH, even if you hated bushes guts you can only bash him for the economic down turn of the last 2-3 years.
Dude, I voted for Kerry, and so did nearly half of America's population. We did not "all reelect Bush".
He is really a well-spoken intelligent man - it's a shame that his party tossed him on the railroad tracks however, I was hopeful for him for a long time to be a Pres/VP option for the Republicans to get them back on track.
Seconded. I'm a pinko lefty borderline socialist, but if my choices were Colin Powell on the GOP ticket and a scummy Democrat, I'd vote for Powell. But the Republican Party has been led by total scum since Nixon brought in the Dixiecrats, so it's not to be.
I find it funny that one of the reasons we're in Iraq a second time is endorsing someone whose policies may cause, or at least would have caused, us to be in Iraq a third time.
I have no high opinion of Powell. The fact that he's apparently a hero confuses me. Then again, we all love JFK for reasons that are completely beyond me, so it may be that expecting sanity amongst our choice of heroes is waiting for a bus that won't come.
One of the reasons? He would've been asked to resign on the spot if he pushed for diplomacy longer, he's made it pretty clear that he wanted more diplomacy measures to avoid the Iraq war but that he was outnumbered in opinion - including by the person that makes final decisions.
(Once again to reflect on my HR days - I fired quite a few people on grounds that I didn't agree with - but it was that or be fired myself, so I presented the reasoning and got thrown under the bus while the person really doing the firing still looked like a good guy to the "victim")
And if you look at his history there's no question the man is a hero - I don't need to go into it, Wikipedia has a pretty solid bio on him. Additionally he's been a superb moderate conservative - he doesn't let the party jingoism over-ride his personal feelings in a number of topics - similar to McCain's "Maverick" quality.
But then again, you subscribe healthily to the party that went from calling our current Iraq leader General "Betray-Us" to referring to his work as heroic and that he was a superb leader over the span of a few months. The past doesn't matter, only the here and now for guys we like (at the moment).
Much like how ANYONE can still take Rush seriously after his history....
It's pretty clear the American people want Obama to win. Why? I have no idea. Will the Obama presidency be a disaster? Of course it will, but the American people want it and that's how we roll in America.
And please tell me how you prognosticate a "disastrous" Obama presidency?
Only negative I can think of is the fact that he's a bit calculating - really puts a lot of thought into things - which when the occasion arises that a quick decision is needed (which isn't too frequently fortunately) I could see him faltering a bit or eliciting a slow response.
Economically both tax plans have complaints that are hard to substantiate without a serious history in economics - and even then the experts are divided. (Although more Nobel prize winners for economics give a nod to Obama than for McCain - assuming the Nobel Prize committee's evaluation ability is up to snuff Obama's should be better)
Because one of Andy Martin's ridiculous witch-hunt ideas actually is correct? They're not, and evidence has been proven of that - not to mention his own history as a vexatious litigant in many states. You know the same Andy Martin that's claiming that Obama's dying grandmother isn't why he's taking a break from the campaign to go to Hawaii for 3 days - and instead that Obama is going there to mess with his "investigation".
Far as I'm concerned, barring some kind of a miracle, there's no way for McCain to win. I admire the tenacity of the people who are holding out for the miracle, but I just don't see it coming.
Obama going to visit his grandma suspending his campaign might hurt him but I think your right barring some oddity such as an assasination or his plane crashing, or obama being proven a non american and removed from the ballot. Basicaly all extreamly unlikely events that are republican dreams but not likely.
There are only 2 words that can save the republican ticket
Voter
Apathy
Unless obama actualy gets out the vote and the white suburban teens/young people who claimed they would vote for them actualy get off thier butts to vote then yes your right.
Also at the referance to the prince and not working in democratic processes consider this, the statement was meant as an independant statement from him.
"Fear is more reliable then love" I would say this is true. McCains goal is to scare his base off of obama and if your not on obama then your at mccain. Its simple enough.
obama's biggest concern is the people he has voting for him. when it comes to minorities and the young they are not the most reliable voters in the world.
that is why they were saying kerry was doing so well because of the youth vote. however when it came time to put money on it they didn't even show up to the party.
same way with minority voters. they just don't seem to get there when they say they will. this election it could change but eh we will see.
hence why we are seeing all these voter drives to get people to the polls.
the problem with powell was diplomacy only works when the other guy wants to talk and actually do something. otherwise it is useless. how many US and NATO sanctions did saddam voilate? i can't even count.
as for mccain winning the election i think it is going to be a repeat of 2000.
it is going to be close. mccain has caught up in FL and in OH. while he trails behind in other states that is not to say that things can't happen in the 2 weeks left.
obama's break from this thing is not good however mccain has to be careful or generate sympathy for obama.
as for mccain's campaign. how he made it through the primary is beyond me. yes it has been poorly run. he should have been hammering on obama's redistribution policies a long time ago. at least mccain understands that low taxes for people and businesses = more money for everyone.
that the government brings in more money in the long haul over higher taxes on people and businesses. That it is government spending that needs to be taken care of. That it is the billions and billions of dollars that get wasted every year on pet projects and other government pork.
mccain at least gets that you can revamp the healthcare system without government involvement in everything. government involvement only makes it worse. just look at medicare and medicaid if you want proof.
obama and reality are two separate things. what is scary is that he thinks his plans will actually work. to bad they have all been tried in the past and have failed and failed miserably.
the most important thing that mccain gets that obama doesn't is this.
It is my money not his.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Obama going to visit his grandma suspending his campaign might hurt him but I think your right barring some oddity such as an assasination or his plane crashing, or obama being proven a non american and removed from the ballot. Basicaly all extreamly unlikely events that are republican dreams but not likely.
There are only 2 words that can save the republican ticket
Voter
Apathy
Unless obama actualy gets out the vote and the white suburban teens/young people who claimed they would vote for them actualy get off thier butts to vote then yes your right.
Also at the referance to the prince and not working in democratic processes consider this, the statement was meant as an independant statement from him.
"Fear is more reliable then love" I would say this is true. McCains goal is to scare his base off of obama and if your not on obama then your at mccain. Its simple enough.
I think a lot of Obama voters are at the least afraid about the economy. (Whether or not Obama is in fact the better person to go to for that, I'm not going to argue right now - the fact is that there's a public perception of Obama's superiority on the economy issue.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They call me Hadoken 'cause I'm down-right fierce.
Apparently the race is tightening up a bit again; whereas claims that Obama "pals around with terrorists" just turned people off, McCain's team has had some success in getting the "socialist" ephithet to stick. Obama's lead nationally was at 8 points a week ago; it's now down to 5.
This whole thing still feels too close for comfort, frankly. And it doesn't help that I've got two dueling inner voices that are frightfully pessimistic. One says that America is screwed if Obama loses. The other says that Obama's merely an ordinary politician with a novel gloss... and America is screwed no matter what. For some reason, my inner optimism is nowhere to be found ATM. Perhaps this nearly 600 day-long election season has starved it to death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Obama's lead nationally was at 8 points a week ago; it's now down to 5.
Not really on the 8 down to 5 thing - his peak was 6.6 average, he's at 6 average now according to 538.com which I trust on the number crunching since they do it so ridiculously much whereas as Drudge has already shown, some people are comparing dissimilar polls to show the results they want.
Re: mystery45 saying FL and OH are tightening - FL is based on a singular poll today, OH isn't - two rather reputable polls with opposite results, the stronger result being the weaker poll too.
Of course FL overall with the most recent polls still has an aggregate of +2.6 Obama. And Ohio with +2.2.
And nevermind the fact that McCain's campaign has been making comments about giving up on Colorado - which unless McCain starts flipping some solid blues would mean he's lost, period - no matter how he could slice it, losing CO would mean game over unless he could flip a blue state red, no amount of swing states would manage it.
I'd debate his other nonsense but he'd just toss a series of Op-Ed articles at me half of which have no relation to the topic, and frankly I'm tired of indulging his lack of objectiveness. He lives in a fantasy world where all Republicans are knights in shining armor, and all Democrats are the disgusting seething underbelly of civilization - abusing the "good" in some manner.
One of the reasons? He would've been asked to resign on the spot if he pushed for diplomacy longer, he's made it pretty clear that he wanted more diplomacy measures to avoid the Iraq war but that he was outnumbered in opinion - including by the person that makes final decisions.
My understanding was he was one of the key voices in not destroying the Republican Guard when we had the chance to before leaving Iraq, thus keeping the very thing that kept Saddam in power in power.
And please tell me how you prognosticate a "disastrous" Obama presidency?
You honestly believe you can put a man with no experience in the most powerful position in the world in such a crucial time and everything will just sail right on by?
As far as I'm concerned, we're electing an even less experienced Kennedy. Considering how terrible a job Kennedy did, yes, I think that's grounds for fear. I don't care if you think Obama is a better candidate than McCain, I'll agree to disagree there, but the idea that Obama being so green in such a powerful position has to put you on your guard, I have no idea what to say if it doesn't.
Of course, this is supplemented by the fact that I think Obama is incompetent. You all clearly disagree, though for what reason I have no idea.
My understanding was he was one of the key voices in not destroying the Republican Guard when we had the chance to before leaving Iraq, thus keeping the very thing that kept Saddam in power in power.
Those of that opinion included Bush Sr. - our intent in the Gulf War was not to attack Iraq, it was to defend Kuwait. To demolish the Republican Guard would've involved an invasion and neither Bush Sr. nor Powell wanted to go without getting the UN to agree, which it was clear they wouldn't.
You honestly believe you can put a man with no experience in the most powerful position in the world in such a crucial time and everything will just sail right on by?
Ever heard of a man named Lincoln? You know that person that Republican's like to mention they're the "party of"
That man, commonly labeled as our greatest President, had zero executive experience as well. (and frankly from my understanding of history - even less non-executive experience)
As far as I'm concerned, we're electing an even less experienced Kennedy. Considering how terrible a job Kennedy did, yes, I think that's grounds for fear. I don't care if you think Obama is a better candidate than McCain, I'll agree to disagree there, but the idea that Obama being so green in such a powerful position has to put you on your guard, I have no idea what to say if it doesn't.
Generally intelligent men, as Obama has shown himself to be - when green draw upon the opinions of those that are very weathered in the subject at hand to temper their opinion.
Sometimes folks that are long of tooth on the other hand, start thinking they know better than anyone else, and start acting out of impulse without looking into things and researching them - we've seen McCain do that on a number of occasions already during the campaign.
If I thought for a minute Obama was impetuous or he didn't listen to his advisers I'd think his inexperience would be an issue - but considering his penchant for listening to people to weigh their input into his opinions - and the SUPERB choices he's mentioned so far for Cabinet spots - I have no doubt that will be a strength, not a flaw.
No man is fit to stand alone as President - his Cabinet is there for that very reason to expand his breadth of knowledge and understanding. The important thing is for that person to be able to understand, interpret and evaluate the propositions his Cabinet brings to him and to deal with those items justly and fairly.
A President may define his Cabinet - but in the end, his Cabinet will define him.
Re: mystery45 saying FL and OH are tightening - FL is based on a singular poll today, OH isn't - two rather reputable polls with opposite results, the stronger result being the weaker poll too.
Of course FL overall with the most recent polls still has an aggregate of +2.6 Obama. And Ohio with +2.2.
And nevermind the fact that McCain's campaign has been making comments about giving up on Colorado - which unless McCain starts flipping some solid blues would mean he's lost, period - no matter how he could slice it, losing CO would mean game over unless he could flip a blue state red, no amount of swing states would manage it.
I'd debate his other nonsense but he'd just toss a series of Op-Ed articles at me half of which have no relation to the topic, and frankly I'm tired of indulging his lack of objectiveness. He lives in a fantasy world where all Republicans are knights in shining armor, and all Democrats are the disgusting seething underbelly of civilization - abusing the "good" in some manner
Nope actually i would go to google.com and present and article that simply disagree's with you. in which since it is isn't a liberal blog site that you quote as God's honest truth; then to you it isn't fact sorry but that isn't how the world works.
My lack of objectiveness one should not throw rocks when they themselves live in glass houses.
Actually that is not true at all. I have met and know some very good Democrats. They actually have good idea's. My only issue with democrats are the morons leading the party right now. yes, they are morons (not that republicans are much better at this point). Like obama they want to sacrifice the whole for the part. sorry it doesn't work that way.
it was either today or yesterday or last week barny frank Mr. there isn't a problem with freddie or fannie. said that there are tons of rich people they can tax. well guess what Mr. frank needs to be reminded of. it isn't his money. he didn't do one damn thing for it. the rich already pay enough in taxes. it is proven that taxing them more gets you nothing only less money.
people need jobs, people need money, the people that provide jobs have money, if people that have the money and provide the jobs are heavily taxed then they stop providing jobs and hide their money.
that is the way that it works. people will protect what is theirs.
----------------------------
your also counting on the fact that these people are actually going to go vote as well. again they did the same thing every election say they are going to vote then not show up.
not a week ago he had an 8-9 point lead. now it is down to a little less than 6.
sorry in florida it is tied or mccain is ahead. in OH it is still a toss up. other battle ground states are closing the gap as well. or obama has not gained anything. the spread the wealth comment has hurt him badly. the continued pushing of taking peoples money to give to someone else is not being well liked in america nor should it.
if you can't come up with a better response and stop the personal attacks which again goes to your credibility and character not mine. i have yet to insult you only disagree with some of your view points which i find flawed based on non-biased articles.
i am sorry that you can't accept that it is not my problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The other says that Obama's merely an ordinary politician with a novel gloss... and America is screwed no matter what. For some reason, my inner optimism is nowhere to be found ATM.
I wish my inner optimism was an ATM...
And yes, America is indeed screwed no matter what happens. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the economy is a big "?" no matter what happens with the presidency.
Those of that opinion included Bush Sr. - our intent in the Gulf War was not to attack Iraq, it was to defend Kuwait. To demolish the Republican Guard would've involved an invasion and neither Bush Sr. nor Powell wanted to go without getting the UN to agree, which it was clear they wouldn't.
To demolish the Republican Guard would have meant surrounding a retreating army. This is otherwise known as the good idea in wartime.
What a very foolish decision was made that day...
Ever heard of a man named Lincoln? You know that person that Republican's like to mention they're the "party of"
That man, commonly labeled as our greatest President, had zero executive experience as well. (and frankly from my understanding of history - even less non-executive experience)
I wonder what it would be like to have the faith to believe that Obama is comparable to Lincoln.
Good luck with that idea. We'll see how far it gets you.
And yes, America is indeed screwed no matter what happens. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the economy is a big "?" no matter what happens with the presidency.
Tsk, tsk. The economy, as long as nobody throws up his (or her) hands and screams like a crazy person, will eventually recover. You have to be phenomenally stupid to screw up the economy (which the bankers, were, suffice to say), and neither McCain nor Obama is that stupid. The real question is, which one will slow the recovery process; that's important, because nobody seems to look at the economic "big picture" and a slow recovery could mean "weak" in some people's eyes.
To demolish the Republican Guard would have meant surrounding a retreating army. This is otherwise known as the good idea in wartime.
When the army is retreating into a sovereign nation? Saddam or no, that takes it up a notch, and would require things like declarations of war and all that. There is, after all, a difference between a UN-sanctioned defense of a little country and a US-led attack on another country.
We went in with the expressed declaration to defend Kuwait from the larger aggressor, Iraq. It was "get Iraq out of Kuwait." We did not go in to "demolish the Iraqi military." It's never so cut-and-dried; if we had destroyed the Iraqi military and even went so far as to topple Saddam right then and there, other countries in the region would have probably cried "American imperialism" right then and there.
Note also that our material support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 allowed Saddam to circumvent a lot of the embargoes and such, and that the whole affair was at least tacitly approved because it was a kind of F-you to Iran for toppling the US-backed Shah. Not to mention the whole Iran-Contra thing, which just shows that the Reagan-era Republicans were very good at screwing around.
Yet another reason to hate the Cold War for spoiling a perfectly good party.
I wonder what it would be like to have the faith to believe that Obama is comparable to Lincoln.
Well, Lincoln wasn't Jesus. He was human. Also he had a much larger issue on his hands than the loss of thousands of points in the stock market—like, half the Union. I'm pretty sure Obama can handle it, even if he's not quite the man Lincoln was.
Note also that while you consider Kennedy to be ineffective among other things, he did kick NASA into gear and let us win the Space Race. Like FDR's New Deal shenanigans, it probably wasn't going to help us directly (win the Cold War with JFK, win the Great Depression with FDR) but it was the kind of thing that inspired the American people to do other things on their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
obama's biggest concern is the people he has voting for him. when it comes to minorities and the young they are not the most reliable voters in the world.
that is why they were saying kerry was doing so well because of the youth vote. however when it came time to put money on it they didn't even show up to the party.
same way with minority voters. they just don't seem to get there when they say they will. this election it could change but eh we will see.
hence why we are seeing all these voter drives to get people to the polls.
The problem with what you are saying...is that it doesn't hold up. Polls leading up to the election had Bush with the advantage. This held true.
The Republicans are relying on the same thing the other party was relying on last election - a blind faith that the constant rigorous polling of the public fails to show true political allegiance.
You mean 'to get people to vote', right?
There are, also, recent polls conducted to find the support of each candidate within their own party. Obama has greater support within his party than McCain, and since there are more Dems these days, that translates to many more supporters. Coupled with the fact that Obama is polling evenly or above that with Independents...things are looking alright. To make up for the gap in support, McCain would have to draw from Independents at a rather large margin.
as for mccain's campaign. how he made it through the primary is beyond me.
And this is exactly why he is where he is now. The conservative pundits didn't want him, didn't believe in him, and now they are transparently supporting him.
obama and reality are two separate things. what is scary is that he thinks his plans will actually work. to bad they have all been tried in the past and have failed and failed miserably.
Most of McCain's policies are reiterations of Bush policies...
Those are, and continue to work so well, why not try them again!
Nope actually i would go to google.com and present and article that simply disagree's with you. in which since it is isn't a liberal blog site that you quote as God's honest truth; then to you it isn't fact sorry but that isn't how the world works.
My lack of objectiveness one should not throw rocks when they themselves live in glass houses.
One article does not debunk the crunching of several polls, sorry. No matter who fivethirtyeight.com wants to win the election, they aren't faking results or pointing out outlier polls to make one candidate look good. (like drudge report reporting on 'the Nick kids vote' because Obama only won it by 2%.) They are taking all factors into consideration, and doing good solid number crunching to figure out what the polls are actually telling us. You will have to do much better to try to debunk their methods, sorry.
your also counting on the fact that these people are actually going to go vote as well. again they did the same thing every election say they are going to vote then not show up.
Again, show me some polls that support the fact that people who polled as saying they would vote for someone...didn't. In significant amounts. I provided a site showing Bush up in 2004 everywhere (more or less) the week leading up to the election. That doesn't jibe with your statements one bit.
not a week ago he had an 8-9 point lead. now it is down to a little less than 6.
Which is still quite a bit these days for a presidential election. It has been assumed that this is just the polls 'evening out' and it will be unlikely that the race will tighten in the polls any more than they have.
sorry in florida it is tied or mccain is ahead. in OH it is still a toss up. other battle ground states are closing the gap as well. or obama has not gained anything. the spread the wealth comment has hurt him badly. the continued pushing of taking peoples money to give to someone else is not being well liked in america nor should it.
Most polls (And poll averages) show Obama ahead in those states (by a few percentage points, but still ahead), try again. The comment has not hurt Obama, it has just given an actual policy talking point for the McCain campaign that will get back the people turned off by the Ayers ridiculousness. They aren't gaining ground, just reclaiming it.
Like I said, you can try to argue against poll results all you want, but history tells us a different story. We have a website that is systematically dissecting the results of all polls coming in, and you refuse to give them any credit because they support Obama. (but accept ads from either candidate and don't let the bias color their reporting of the cold hard numbers) The table posted by Vaclav is solid data, and while it was posted on their site, that is the results of several polls...so the data isn't biased.
It's fairly obcious that either McCain or Obama will have a less-than-stellar presidency. They both are coming in after Bush Jr. and the Republican Party ran the country into the ground, and that's not a good spot to be in. I think Obama will win, and Obama should win, but I doubt he will be able to do much. There's just too much gone wrong.
And for those of you still sitting on the "Bush got re-elected" stump, he got re-elected because of the shady appearence of another Bin Laden video and the fact Kerry was a terrible nomination. The Democrat Party continues to do anything it can to lose the White House each election. On top of that, most of the things people hate about Bush came out after 2004.
And for those of you still sitting on the "Bush got re-elected" stump, he got re-elected because of the shady appearence of another Bin Laden video and the fact Kerry was a terrible nomination. The Democrat Party continues to do anything it can to lose the White House each election.
They seemed to be shooting themselves in the foot once again during the primaries this time around, but they picked themselves an extremely competitive nominee and shaped up to run a tight general election campaign. It will not entirely be the McCain campaign's fault that the Republicans lost. Not even close.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They seemed to be shooting themselves in the foot once again during the primaries this time around, but they picked themselves an extremely competitive nominee and shaped up to run a tight general election campaign. It will not entirely be the McCain campaign's fault that the Republicans lost. Not even close.
That would be why Obama's polls remained stagnant until Palin was picked, then plateaued again. Obama has had little to no effect on the polls, which is not the sign of a good canidate. this election season was the Deomcrats to lose again, and Obama's performance is not stellar. It's good, but not stellar.
Besides, I was referring to the past two elections. Both Gore and Kerry were bad choices. Mind you, Gore was probably the best choice availible then. He looked like a tranny robot, lost a debate to Bush, and then cried about losing for weeks. Kerry was a bad choice period.
On top of it all, McCain is losing by a couple points outside of the margin of error. Obama has yet to cross the 50% barrier, and McCain is wavering between 44% and 46%. Obama is, however, dominating the electoral college. This is a great feat for his campaign.... if it wasn't the same traditional swing states. His election failed to do the one thing he promised it would to the party: he did not change the electoral college map.
Again, McCain is losing much more than Obama is winning. I'm also not saying Hillary would be doing any better, and Edwards would tank yet another Democratic White House bid, just as the presidential nominee this time.
They seemed to be shooting themselves in the foot once again during the primaries this time around, but they picked themselves an extremely competitive nominee and shaped up to run a tight general election campaign. It will not entirely be the McCain campaign's fault that the Republicans lost. Not even close.
While I agree with this, I do believe that McCain's pick of Palin was his greatest failing in this campaign, and considering the polls were pretty much within standard of error between McCain and Obama the entire time leading up to the DNC, I really do think a VP that the public would have gone along with would not see McCain in the same position he's in now.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
Powell is a great man, thought so before he broke ranks from the party even - and his statement pretty much hit on all the points of how I feel about how the Republican party has been going the past 8 yrs or so.
As I've read elsewhere - it's really more and more turning into the Rush Limbaugh party more so than the small government, privacy-minded fiscal conservatives that most of us old farts signed on with the party as.
He is really a well-spoken intelligent man - it's a shame that his party tossed him on the railroad tracks however, I was hopeful for him for a long time to be a Pres/VP option for the Republicans to get them back on track.
Addition:
Looks like some of the McCain supporters are wising up to get the nutjobs quiet at the very least - maybe there's hope for the party getting back on track with SANE Americans like these around to keep the nutjobs in check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl2EndLZv7w (Note: All McCain supporters there - good to see people that actually understand what our country is about standing up to the Rush-inspired fools)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
1) Bush was president for a year, then 9/11 happened. I dare you to watch the planes crash into the towers, see how you feel about the war then.
2) YOU ALL REELECTED BUSH, even if you hated bushes guts you can only bash him for the economic down turn of the last 2-3 years.
3) Bush is clearly not an idiot. He is just not well articulated.
4) Bush is a good man who made a couple mistakes which lead to things becoming out of his control. (See funding the war and the democrats gaining control of congress)
5) The election is obamas thats just the way it is, whoever ran mccains camp into the ground was the man to lose it mccain is just not that man.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
Okay.
Alright I just watched it. Now am I supposed to still be irrationally racist and support the invasion of Iraq? Cuz I'm not.
Unless you're talking about Afghanistan, but you said "the war", and "the" war usually refers to Iraq I've found.
Even those who voted against him in '04? Yeah that makes sense.
From Wikipedia:
"[At Yale] He was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00."
"In May 1968, Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard, after scoring the lowest acceptable passing grade on the pilot's written aptitude test."
I know someone who went to Yale with Bush in the same class. He put it this way; there are two kinds of people who get into Yale, those who study hard and get the grades and those who get in for their name. At Yale, there were also two types of student; the scholastically excellent student, and the party kid that can barely be called a student. Bush was part of the latter in both cases, according to him.
Wow, way to diminish the CHOICE to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a good man? Do you know him personally? Better yet, does this even matter when analyzing him as a political figure?
We'll never know, huh?
Seriously, your post is just full of ridiculous assertions that aren't supported objectively at all.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!
I have no idea what you're trying to say, here.
Your reasons for backing up bush are truly pathetic, anyone who is smart alerady thinkgs hes doing a terrible job. The 20% (according to national polls) that think he is doing a good job clearly lack any deep intelligence. You think the last 8 years have been just fine. Sure they were ok when you look in the scope of the present. But when you look in the scope of the future, him and his party have backed the US into an economic and military corner, and spent us out of house and home. He doubled the national debt. Something that has never been done before. You really think the economic crisis came out of the blue? Please think before you talk.
Sure 9/11 sucked real hard. But that dosen't give us the right to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq). If you want to stop Bin Laden he is hiding in the hills of pakistan, the military leaders already know this. Do you even know the agendas of the war? You really come across as a stubborn republican that does not know much about politics so tries to fight facts with "he's a good man".
Point #1 - I never referred to Bush, I referred to the last 8 years, he had his part to play in things, but overall I'd put most of the blame people would lay at his feet on his advisors. But an even larger part goes on the RNC and the party in general that has completely changed it's tune since Clinton. Pre-Clinton and Post-Clinton the Republican PARTY barely resembles itself.
His history showed him to have a great approach to taking input from others in making his decisions, which can be a great thing if you don't have evil manipulative folks pulling the strings. (Or at least the intelligence to weigh things out before making a final decision)
I helped feed and otherwise assisted the gentlemen digging out the rubble on day 3 to day 7 (including my cousin who's a firefighter here in MD, he got up there on day 2 and stuck around til it was done - unfortunately my career only was OK with giving me the 4 days to help out) - you don't need to remind me what happened.
But I don't forget about the FACT that Iraq had a tenuous connection AT BEST when all the intelligence was pointing that way - it's ridiculous that we took all the effort in Afghanistan that they were obviously retaliating against and ignored that to start up a second war that some fools still seem to think was connected - when it wasn't in any way, shape or form.
He's a Lincoln - Lincoln was a relatively inexperienced and not the brightest guy around but he put together a great Cabinet that balanced out his flaws. Unfortunately Bush's Cabinet wasn't a beneficial co-existance.
Both of those I would place squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party, he's just the common scapegoat to many because of his position at the top. Personally, I'd lay that blame at Rush and the other ridiculously right-wing pundits that are forming a rift between the neo-cons and the true conservatives.
Right, but McCain should've been smart enough to say "You're an idiot - this is the worst campaign ever - get out" - that's what a Maverick should and would do when presented with that problem.
I honestly think that McCain has been mostly phoning it in since the VP nomination - he was pumped to go forward before the RNC convention - but afterwards he just seemed unmotivated, spirit broken when he wasn't allowed to pick Lieberman for his VP.
I think he sees the bad turns in his campaign strategies that they're putting together and he just doesn't care anymore and just wants it to be over. Even more as I see him and his care seems to wane more, more of the "real McCain" of 2000 shows to me. He's a great man at heart, but he got absolutely hijacked into a type of campaigning his heart just wasn't into and it really shows.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I find it funny that one of the reasons we're in Iraq a second time is endorsing someone whose policies may cause, or at least would have caused, us to be in Iraq a third time.
I have no high opinion of Powell. The fact that he's apparently a hero confuses me. Then again, we all love JFK for reasons that are completely beyond me, so it may be that expecting sanity amongst our choice of heroes is waiting for a bus that won't come.
It's pretty clear the American people want Obama to win. Why? I have no idea. Will the Obama presidency be a disaster? Of course it will, but the American people want it and that's how we roll in America.
Far as I'm concerned, barring some kind of a miracle, there's no way for McCain to win. I admire the tenacity of the people who are holding out for the miracle, but I just don't see it coming.
Dude, I voted for Kerry, and so did nearly half of America's population. We did not "all reelect Bush".
Seconded. I'm a pinko lefty borderline socialist, but if my choices were Colin Powell on the GOP ticket and a scummy Democrat, I'd vote for Powell. But the Republican Party has been led by total scum since Nixon brought in the Dixiecrats, so it's not to be.
One of the reasons? He would've been asked to resign on the spot if he pushed for diplomacy longer, he's made it pretty clear that he wanted more diplomacy measures to avoid the Iraq war but that he was outnumbered in opinion - including by the person that makes final decisions.
(Once again to reflect on my HR days - I fired quite a few people on grounds that I didn't agree with - but it was that or be fired myself, so I presented the reasoning and got thrown under the bus while the person really doing the firing still looked like a good guy to the "victim")
And if you look at his history there's no question the man is a hero - I don't need to go into it, Wikipedia has a pretty solid bio on him. Additionally he's been a superb moderate conservative - he doesn't let the party jingoism over-ride his personal feelings in a number of topics - similar to McCain's "Maverick" quality.
But then again, you subscribe healthily to the party that went from calling our current Iraq leader General "Betray-Us" to referring to his work as heroic and that he was a superb leader over the span of a few months. The past doesn't matter, only the here and now for guys we like (at the moment).
Much like how ANYONE can still take Rush seriously after his history....
And please tell me how you prognosticate a "disastrous" Obama presidency?
Only negative I can think of is the fact that he's a bit calculating - really puts a lot of thought into things - which when the occasion arises that a quick decision is needed (which isn't too frequently fortunately) I could see him faltering a bit or eliciting a slow response.
Economically both tax plans have complaints that are hard to substantiate without a serious history in economics - and even then the experts are divided. (Although more Nobel prize winners for economics give a nod to Obama than for McCain - assuming the Nobel Prize committee's evaluation ability is up to snuff Obama's should be better)
Because one of Andy Martin's ridiculous witch-hunt ideas actually is correct? They're not, and evidence has been proven of that - not to mention his own history as a vexatious litigant in many states. You know the same Andy Martin that's claiming that Obama's dying grandmother isn't why he's taking a break from the campaign to go to Hawaii for 3 days - and instead that Obama is going there to mess with his "investigation".
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Obama going to visit his grandma suspending his campaign might hurt him but I think your right barring some oddity such as an assasination or his plane crashing, or obama being proven a non american and removed from the ballot. Basicaly all extreamly unlikely events that are republican dreams but not likely.
There are only 2 words that can save the republican ticket
Voter
Apathy
Unless obama actualy gets out the vote and the white suburban teens/young people who claimed they would vote for them actualy get off thier butts to vote then yes your right.
Also at the referance to the prince and not working in democratic processes consider this, the statement was meant as an independant statement from him.
"Fear is more reliable then love" I would say this is true. McCains goal is to scare his base off of obama and if your not on obama then your at mccain. Its simple enough.
Wizards in relation to modern.
"The bannings will continue until attendance improves."
Not sure if trolling or just very stupid.:fry:
that is why they were saying kerry was doing so well because of the youth vote. however when it came time to put money on it they didn't even show up to the party.
same way with minority voters. they just don't seem to get there when they say they will. this election it could change but eh we will see.
hence why we are seeing all these voter drives to get people to the polls.
the problem with powell was diplomacy only works when the other guy wants to talk and actually do something. otherwise it is useless. how many US and NATO sanctions did saddam voilate? i can't even count.
as for mccain winning the election i think it is going to be a repeat of 2000.
it is going to be close. mccain has caught up in FL and in OH. while he trails behind in other states that is not to say that things can't happen in the 2 weeks left.
obama's break from this thing is not good however mccain has to be careful or generate sympathy for obama.
as for mccain's campaign. how he made it through the primary is beyond me. yes it has been poorly run. he should have been hammering on obama's redistribution policies a long time ago. at least mccain understands that low taxes for people and businesses = more money for everyone.
that the government brings in more money in the long haul over higher taxes on people and businesses. That it is government spending that needs to be taken care of. That it is the billions and billions of dollars that get wasted every year on pet projects and other government pork.
mccain at least gets that you can revamp the healthcare system without government involvement in everything. government involvement only makes it worse. just look at medicare and medicaid if you want proof.
obama and reality are two separate things. what is scary is that he thinks his plans will actually work. to bad they have all been tried in the past and have failed and failed miserably.
the most important thing that mccain gets that obama doesn't is this.
It is my money not his.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I think a lot of Obama voters are at the least afraid about the economy. (Whether or not Obama is in fact the better person to go to for that, I'm not going to argue right now - the fact is that there's a public perception of Obama's superiority on the economy issue.)
This whole thing still feels too close for comfort, frankly. And it doesn't help that I've got two dueling inner voices that are frightfully pessimistic. One says that America is screwed if Obama loses. The other says that Obama's merely an ordinary politician with a novel gloss... and America is screwed no matter what. For some reason, my inner optimism is nowhere to be found ATM. Perhaps this nearly 600 day-long election season has starved it to death.
Not really on the 8 down to 5 thing - his peak was 6.6 average, he's at 6 average now according to 538.com which I trust on the number crunching since they do it so ridiculously much whereas as Drudge has already shown, some people are comparing dissimilar polls to show the results they want.
Re: mystery45 saying FL and OH are tightening - FL is based on a singular poll today, OH isn't - two rather reputable polls with opposite results, the stronger result being the weaker poll too.
Of course FL overall with the most recent polls still has an aggregate of +2.6 Obama. And Ohio with +2.2.
And nevermind the fact that McCain's campaign has been making comments about giving up on Colorado - which unless McCain starts flipping some solid blues would mean he's lost, period - no matter how he could slice it, losing CO would mean game over unless he could flip a blue state red, no amount of swing states would manage it.
I'd debate his other nonsense but he'd just toss a series of Op-Ed articles at me half of which have no relation to the topic, and frankly I'm tired of indulging his lack of objectiveness. He lives in a fantasy world where all Republicans are knights in shining armor, and all Democrats are the disgusting seething underbelly of civilization - abusing the "good" in some manner.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
My understanding was he was one of the key voices in not destroying the Republican Guard when we had the chance to before leaving Iraq, thus keeping the very thing that kept Saddam in power in power.
You honestly believe you can put a man with no experience in the most powerful position in the world in such a crucial time and everything will just sail right on by?
As far as I'm concerned, we're electing an even less experienced Kennedy. Considering how terrible a job Kennedy did, yes, I think that's grounds for fear. I don't care if you think Obama is a better candidate than McCain, I'll agree to disagree there, but the idea that Obama being so green in such a powerful position has to put you on your guard, I have no idea what to say if it doesn't.
Of course, this is supplemented by the fact that I think Obama is incompetent. You all clearly disagree, though for what reason I have no idea.
Those of that opinion included Bush Sr. - our intent in the Gulf War was not to attack Iraq, it was to defend Kuwait. To demolish the Republican Guard would've involved an invasion and neither Bush Sr. nor Powell wanted to go without getting the UN to agree, which it was clear they wouldn't.
Ever heard of a man named Lincoln? You know that person that Republican's like to mention they're the "party of"
That man, commonly labeled as our greatest President, had zero executive experience as well. (and frankly from my understanding of history - even less non-executive experience)
Generally intelligent men, as Obama has shown himself to be - when green draw upon the opinions of those that are very weathered in the subject at hand to temper their opinion.
Sometimes folks that are long of tooth on the other hand, start thinking they know better than anyone else, and start acting out of impulse without looking into things and researching them - we've seen McCain do that on a number of occasions already during the campaign.
If I thought for a minute Obama was impetuous or he didn't listen to his advisers I'd think his inexperience would be an issue - but considering his penchant for listening to people to weigh their input into his opinions - and the SUPERB choices he's mentioned so far for Cabinet spots - I have no doubt that will be a strength, not a flaw.
No man is fit to stand alone as President - his Cabinet is there for that very reason to expand his breadth of knowledge and understanding. The important thing is for that person to be able to understand, interpret and evaluate the propositions his Cabinet brings to him and to deal with those items justly and fairly.
A President may define his Cabinet - but in the end, his Cabinet will define him.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Nope actually i would go to google.com and present and article that simply disagree's with you. in which since it is isn't a liberal blog site that you quote as God's honest truth; then to you it isn't fact sorry but that isn't how the world works.
My lack of objectiveness one should not throw rocks when they themselves live in glass houses.
Actually that is not true at all. I have met and know some very good Democrats. They actually have good idea's. My only issue with democrats are the morons leading the party right now. yes, they are morons (not that republicans are much better at this point). Like obama they want to sacrifice the whole for the part. sorry it doesn't work that way.
it was either today or yesterday or last week barny frank Mr. there isn't a problem with freddie or fannie. said that there are tons of rich people they can tax. well guess what Mr. frank needs to be reminded of. it isn't his money. he didn't do one damn thing for it. the rich already pay enough in taxes. it is proven that taxing them more gets you nothing only less money.
people need jobs, people need money, the people that provide jobs have money, if people that have the money and provide the jobs are heavily taxed then they stop providing jobs and hide their money.
that is the way that it works. people will protect what is theirs.
----------------------------
your also counting on the fact that these people are actually going to go vote as well. again they did the same thing every election say they are going to vote then not show up.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
not a week ago he had an 8-9 point lead. now it is down to a little less than 6.
sorry in florida it is tied or mccain is ahead. in OH it is still a toss up. other battle ground states are closing the gap as well. or obama has not gained anything. the spread the wealth comment has hurt him badly. the continued pushing of taking peoples money to give to someone else is not being well liked in america nor should it.
if you can't come up with a better response and stop the personal attacks which again goes to your credibility and character not mine. i have yet to insult you only disagree with some of your view points which i find flawed based on non-biased articles.
i am sorry that you can't accept that it is not my problem.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I wish my inner optimism was an ATM...
And yes, America is indeed screwed no matter what happens. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the economy is a big "?" no matter what happens with the presidency.
To demolish the Republican Guard would have meant surrounding a retreating army. This is otherwise known as the good idea in wartime.
What a very foolish decision was made that day...
I wonder what it would be like to have the faith to believe that Obama is comparable to Lincoln.
Good luck with that idea. We'll see how far it gets you.
Tsk, tsk. The economy, as long as nobody throws up his (or her) hands and screams like a crazy person, will eventually recover. You have to be phenomenally stupid to screw up the economy (which the bankers, were, suffice to say), and neither McCain nor Obama is that stupid. The real question is, which one will slow the recovery process; that's important, because nobody seems to look at the economic "big picture" and a slow recovery could mean "weak" in some people's eyes.
When the army is retreating into a sovereign nation? Saddam or no, that takes it up a notch, and would require things like declarations of war and all that. There is, after all, a difference between a UN-sanctioned defense of a little country and a US-led attack on another country.
We went in with the expressed declaration to defend Kuwait from the larger aggressor, Iraq. It was "get Iraq out of Kuwait." We did not go in to "demolish the Iraqi military." It's never so cut-and-dried; if we had destroyed the Iraqi military and even went so far as to topple Saddam right then and there, other countries in the region would have probably cried "American imperialism" right then and there.
Note also that our material support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 allowed Saddam to circumvent a lot of the embargoes and such, and that the whole affair was at least tacitly approved because it was a kind of F-you to Iran for toppling the US-backed Shah. Not to mention the whole Iran-Contra thing, which just shows that the Reagan-era Republicans were very good at screwing around.
Yet another reason to hate the Cold War for spoiling a perfectly good party.
Well, Lincoln wasn't Jesus. He was human. Also he had a much larger issue on his hands than the loss of thousands of points in the stock market—like, half the Union. I'm pretty sure Obama can handle it, even if he's not quite the man Lincoln was.
Note also that while you consider Kennedy to be ineffective among other things, he did kick NASA into gear and let us win the Space Race. Like FDR's New Deal shenanigans, it probably wasn't going to help us directly (win the Cold War with JFK, win the Great Depression with FDR) but it was the kind of thing that inspired the American people to do other things on their own.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The problem with what you are saying...is that it doesn't hold up.
Polls leading up to the election had Bush with the advantage. This held true.
The Republicans are relying on the same thing the other party was relying on last election - a blind faith that the constant rigorous polling of the public fails to show true political allegiance.
You mean 'to get people to vote', right?
There are, also, recent polls conducted to find the support of each candidate within their own party. Obama has greater support within his party than McCain, and since there are more Dems these days, that translates to many more supporters. Coupled with the fact that Obama is polling evenly or above that with Independents...things are looking alright. To make up for the gap in support, McCain would have to draw from Independents at a rather large margin.
And this is exactly why he is where he is now. The conservative pundits didn't want him, didn't believe in him, and now they are transparently supporting him.
Most of McCain's policies are reiterations of Bush policies...
Those are, and continue to work so well, why not try them again!
One article does not debunk the crunching of several polls, sorry. No matter who fivethirtyeight.com wants to win the election, they aren't faking results or pointing out outlier polls to make one candidate look good. (like drudge report reporting on 'the Nick kids vote' because Obama only won it by 2%.) They are taking all factors into consideration, and doing good solid number crunching to figure out what the polls are actually telling us. You will have to do much better to try to debunk their methods, sorry.
Again, show me some polls that support the fact that people who polled as saying they would vote for someone...didn't. In significant amounts. I provided a site showing Bush up in 2004 everywhere (more or less) the week leading up to the election. That doesn't jibe with your statements one bit.
Which is still quite a bit these days for a presidential election. It has been assumed that this is just the polls 'evening out' and it will be unlikely that the race will tighten in the polls any more than they have.
Most polls (And poll averages) show Obama ahead in those states (by a few percentage points, but still ahead), try again. The comment has not hurt Obama, it has just given an actual policy talking point for the McCain campaign that will get back the people turned off by the Ayers ridiculousness. They aren't gaining ground, just reclaiming it.
Like I said, you can try to argue against poll results all you want, but history tells us a different story. We have a website that is systematically dissecting the results of all polls coming in, and you refuse to give them any credit because they support Obama. (but accept ads from either candidate and don't let the bias color their reporting of the cold hard numbers) The table posted by Vaclav is solid data, and while it was posted on their site, that is the results of several polls...so the data isn't biased.
Twitter
And for those of you still sitting on the "Bush got re-elected" stump, he got re-elected because of the shady appearence of another Bin Laden video and the fact Kerry was a terrible nomination. The Democrat Party continues to do anything it can to lose the White House each election. On top of that, most of the things people hate about Bush came out after 2004.
They seemed to be shooting themselves in the foot once again during the primaries this time around, but they picked themselves an extremely competitive nominee and shaped up to run a tight general election campaign. It will not entirely be the McCain campaign's fault that the Republicans lost. Not even close.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That would be why Obama's polls remained stagnant until Palin was picked, then plateaued again. Obama has had little to no effect on the polls, which is not the sign of a good canidate. this election season was the Deomcrats to lose again, and Obama's performance is not stellar. It's good, but not stellar.
Besides, I was referring to the past two elections. Both Gore and Kerry were bad choices. Mind you, Gore was probably the best choice availible then. He looked like a tranny robot, lost a debate to Bush, and then cried about losing for weeks. Kerry was a bad choice period.
On top of it all, McCain is losing by a couple points outside of the margin of error. Obama has yet to cross the 50% barrier, and McCain is wavering between 44% and 46%. Obama is, however, dominating the electoral college. This is a great feat for his campaign.... if it wasn't the same traditional swing states. His election failed to do the one thing he promised it would to the party: he did not change the electoral college map.
Again, McCain is losing much more than Obama is winning. I'm also not saying Hillary would be doing any better, and Edwards would tank yet another Democratic White House bid, just as the presidential nominee this time.
While I agree with this, I do believe that McCain's pick of Palin was his greatest failing in this campaign, and considering the polls were pretty much within standard of error between McCain and Obama the entire time leading up to the DNC, I really do think a VP that the public would have gone along with would not see McCain in the same position he's in now.