I think it shows that people are responding to McCain's attacks, especially since the Obama camp seems reluctant to really hit back.
He actually has a few attack ads out. I have seen at least three this month attacking McCain's celebrity ads, his energy ads, and his views on the economy. Obama's ads just suck, and require people going to his website "for the full story".
I also think the poll reflects the problem with Obama's message. All US presidential elections follow the same pattern: candidates run far to the left or right to cinch their parties' nominations and then move back towards the center during the general election. I believe Obama's message of change and moving past politics as is resonated during the primaries. Now that Obama is having to move back towards center some voters who appreciated his primary message might now feel a little betrayed.
I think this really is the biggest problem he has been hving. The article mentions it towards the bottom:
"Conservatives were supposed to be the bigger problem for McCain," Zogby said. "Obama still has work to do on his base. At this point McCain seems to be doing a better job with his."
He's lost more democrats (and moderates) than he's attracted at this point.
*edit*
Sorry for the double post, I accidentally hit post before I could copy and past into the post above.
How in the world is that statement completely wrong? Is is wrong to desire less conflict in the world? Basically I don't think you're being fair to Obama here: urging a reduction in hostilities is not a sign of character weakness.
Again, when Russia is bombing a country, you don't tell the country Russia is bombing to simmer down. That's ridiculous.
Well, the best person to ask would be Obama or someone from his campaign, but I'll give it a shot.
Of course. I don't actually expect anyone here to read Obama's mind. (Although, if anyone here can, insight into the VP pick would be appreciated).
Obama has been opposed to the war in Iraq from its beginning. It makes sense that he's more interested in getting out than in commiting more troops.
It's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want us to lose a war. For him to say the surge was a mistake, when you consider how things were before the surge and how we're winning now in post-surge, that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say.
Well, the poll says "likely US voters", so I'm guessing the young voters are being factored out. Which, fair enough, they've taken measures to factor themselves out in the past elections, but with Obama I don't think that's something one can count on.
What is clear is that Obama's lead has fallen. CNN shows him with a two point lead, with that two points being in the margin of error. What can be taken away is that this is going to be a hell of a race.
He actually has a few attack ads out. I have seen at least three this month attacking McCain's celebrity ads, his energy ads, and his views on the economy. Obama's ads just suck, and require people going to his website "for the full story".
Exactly. McCain's been hitting Obama hard and Obama's responses haven't been strong enough.
Again, when Russia is bombing a country, you don't tell the country Russia is bombing to simmer down. That's ridiculous.
Jingoist rhetoric doesn't usually make a situation better. I believe Obama wasn't telling Georgia to "simmer down" but rather not to escalate the conflict to the point of ethnic strife. Saakashvili could tell his people to take their aggression out on the Russians living amongst them.
Well, the poll says "likely US voters", so I'm guessing the young voters are being factored out. Which, fair enough, they've taken measures to factor themselves out in the past elections, but with Obama I don't think that's something one can count on.
I though that the poll takes the demographic portions from the previous election. I could be very wrong, but either way it's almost and exact reversal from a month ago.
What is clear is that Obama's lead has fallen. CNN shows him with a two point lead, with that two points being in the margin of error. What can be taken away is that this is going to be a hell of a race.
Anyone that thought otherwise was clearly too far under Obama's shadow to see otherwise.
I though that the poll takes the demographic portions from the previous election. I could be very wrong, but either way it's almost and exact reversal from a month ago.
I guess it does, I'm not sure what "likely voters" is meant to be taken as.
It's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want us to lose a war. For him to say the surge was a mistake, when you consider how things were before the surge and how we're winning now in post-surge, that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say.
Your optimism is inspiring. Personally, when I step in a dung heap I generally avoid putting the other foot in after it. That's pretty much how I and a lot of Americans view the Iraq war and the surge.
Your optimism is inspiring. Personally, when I step in a dung heap I generally avoid putting the other foot in after it. That's pretty much how I and a lot of Americans view the Iraq war and the surge.
So the sudden downturn in violence since the surge is a bad thing now?
So the sudden downturn in violence since the surge is a bad thing now?
Award for best staw man ever:trophy::toot: The fact that Iraq is a less violent place now than it was is not the issue. The issue is "Should we have committed more troops to Iraq?"
Your answer, I gather, is: "Yes because it worked."
My answer: "No because it was more commitment to a mess I wish we hadn't been in in the first place."
Award for best staw man ever:trophy::toot: The fact that Iraq is a less violent place now than it was is not the issue. The issue is "Should we have committed more troops to Iraq?"
Your answer, I gather, is: "Yes because it worked."
My answer: "No because it was more commitment to a mess I wish we hadn't been in in the first place."
What a ******** response. What you need to get your mind around is that the war happened. You don't get the option of going back in time and undoing the war in Iraq. Your possibilities are:
A. Fail in Iraq
B. Succeed in Iraq
Which goes back to what I said before, it's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want to lose a war. If Obama's trying to make the correct decision in 2003 by making a horrific decision now, he should not be our president.
The reduced violence in Iraq is the very core of the issue. McCain backed the surge, Obama didn't back the surge, and still won't back the surge even when it's been proven to work. If we're talking about who would make a better president, McCain certainly has the lead on foreign policy and Commander-in-Chief.
What a ******** response. What you need to get your mind around is that the war happened. You don't get the option of going back in time and undoing the war in Iraq. Your possibilities are:
A. Fail in Iraq
B. Succeed in Iraq
That's a false dilemma. Would could leave Iraq and then the Iraqis could "succeed" and drive out AQI themselves. The fate of Iraq does not have to rest upon only our shoulders.
Of course it isn't. We either succeed or fail in Iraq. If what comes out of Iraq is a government that can provide safety and stability for its people, success, if not failure. It only works one of two ways.
What a ******** response. What you need to get your mind around is that the war happened. You don't get the option of going back in time and undoing the war in Iraq. Your possibilities are:
A. Fail in Iraq
B. Succeed in Iraq
Which goes back to what I said before, it's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want to lose a war. If Obama's trying to make the correct decision in 2003 by making a horrific decision now, he should not be our president.
Yes the war happened. We won the war. The war is over. Now our troops are stationed in a foreign counrty in the middle of brewing civil war that we seem only able to contain by massive exertions of force. I'd like to see my friends come home instead of dying to prevent a bunch of people from having a civil war that a lot of them have been wanting to have for the last 1,000 years or so. I want my country to stop paying to rebuild a country that's literally sitting on billions of dollars of oil wealth. I want less involvement in Iraq, not more. Therefore, I dislike the surge.
Of course it isn't. We either succeed or fail in Iraq. If what comes out of Iraq is a government that can provide safety and stability for its people, success, if not failure. It only works one of two ways.
Yes the war happened. We won the war. The war is over. Now our troops are stationed in a foreign counrty in the middle of brewing civil war that we seem only able to contain by massive exertions of force. I'd like to see my friends come home instead of dying to prevent a bunch of people from having a civil war that a lot of them have been wanting to have for the last 1,000 years or so. I want my country to stop paying to rebuild a country that's literally sitting on billions of dollars of oil wealth. I want less involvement in Iraq, not more. Therefore, I dislike the surge.
Oh I get it. You would have liked it if we left Iraq in total chaos after taking out Saddam?
Oh I get it. You would have liked it if we left Iraq in total chaos after taking out Saddam?
I don't recall posting that. Then again, I don't seem to have t post anything, since you can make up whatever you want me to have posted. I think the war was unjust and that the occupation was poorly planned and executed. I think the surge was a last ditch effort that may have worked, at least temporarily, but I don't think it's worth the cost.
You think eternal war is an option?
Ever heard of Israel? The Thirty Years War? The Hundred Years War?
So if Obama is elected and pulls troops out in 16 months and then the Iraqis proceed to take matters into their own hands and stabilize their country we still get to take the credit?
Yes the war happened. We won the war. The war is over. Now our troops are stationed in a foreign counrty in the middle of brewing civil war that we seem only able to contain by massive exertions of force. I'd like to see my friends come home instead of dying to prevent a bunch of people from having a civil war that a lot of them have been wanting to have for the last 1,000 years or so. I want my country to stop paying to rebuild a country that's literally sitting on billions of dollars of oil wealth. I want less involvement in Iraq, not more. Therefore, I dislike the surge.
How can you be so selfish? You'd let these Iraqis kill themselves to save our own asses?
So if Obama is elected and pulls troops out in 16 months and then the Iraqis proceed to take matters into their own hands and stabilize their country we still get to take the credit?
It doesn't matter who gets the credit, as long as there is success.... sheesh...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
How can you be so selfish? You'd let these Iraqis kill themselves to save our own asses?
People have been killing each other since Cain and Abel. If you think you can stop it then be my guest. I don't see why we should put our soldiers in the crossfire of a conflict that's older than our country.
What about them?
Read the post I was responding to. I did quote it after all. Highroller was stating that perpetual conflict wouldn't happen. History says that the case might be otherwise.
It doesn't matter who gets the credit, as long as there is success.... sheesh...
That's very egalitarian of you. It's also irrelevant to what Nis was talking about.
People have been killing each other since Cain and Abel. If you think you can stop it then be my guest. I don't see why we should put our soldiers in the crossfire of a conflict that's older than our country.
Ah, but currently, the prevention of this civil war is directly connected to whether we stay in Iraq or not.
Read the post I was responding to. I did quote it after all. Highroller was stating that perpetual conflict wouldn't happen. History says that the case might be otherwise.
What? The Hundred Year's war is still going on? Darn those war-like French people!!!
That's very egalitarian of you. It's also irrelevant to what Nis was talking about.
Yes. His point was to say that Iraq can succeed without us being there. However, do you honestly think that is possible right now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
Ah, but currently, the prevention of this civil war is directly connected to whether we stay in Iraq or not.
What prevention? People are shooting and stuff's blowing up. Sounds like a civil war to me.
What? The Hundred Year's war is still going on? Darn those war-like French people!!!
oh yeah, I forgot. If it happened more than five minutes ago it's irrelevant. The point (that you're willfully ignoring) is that there are plenty of instances of conflicts that go on and on. Assuming that we will win anytime soon is foolish.
Yes. His point was to say that Iraq can succeed without us being there. However, do you honestly think that is possible right now?
I don't think it's possible with us there. What's your point?
Yes. His point was to say that Iraq can succeed without us being there. However, do you honestly think that is possible right now?
No my point was that Highroller was presenting a false dilemma by saying we either succeed or fail in Iraq. I was pointing out that we could leave Iraq, the action being neither success nor failure, and the Iraqis themselves could succeed (regardless of chances). To then claim that the Iraqi success would be ours would be arrogant.
Basically I'm saying that there are more than two outcomes in Iraq.
Unless I'm mistaken there is already a thread to discuss the war in Iraq. There is no need to discuss it in this thread, especially since it's looking more and more like the war in Iraq won't play a part in the 2008 election. Right now what's going on in Georgia, the fuel crisis, and the economy are all more important issues to the race. So please take this discussion to another thread.
Basically I'm saying that there are more than two outcomes in Iraq.
Good point. I actually wonder how much real influence the next U.S. Pres will have on that outcome. Until now our policy has been to sort of half-heartedly back the moderate Shiites while trying to include the Sunni, but there are extremist factions on both sides that could theoretically take over fairly quickly. There's also the issue of how things will play out with the regional players like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Lot of variables there that we don't get to decide in November.
Unless I'm mistaken there is already a thread to discuss the war in Iraq. There is no need to discuss it in this thread, especially since it's looking more and more like the war in Iraq won't play a part in the 2008 election. Right now what's going on in Georgia, the fuel crisis, and the economy are all more important issues to the race. So please take this discussion to another thread.
(a) There is no active Iraq thread.
(b) Iraq is definitely relevant to the presidential race, however "unimportant" it may be since the Surge made it less media bait.
(c) Who died and made you mod?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Neither does 95% of the world's population, I don't see what bearing that has in a poll.
He actually has a few attack ads out. I have seen at least three this month attacking McCain's celebrity ads, his energy ads, and his views on the economy. Obama's ads just suck, and require people going to his website "for the full story".
I think this really is the biggest problem he has been hving. The article mentions it towards the bottom:
He's lost more democrats (and moderates) than he's attracted at this point.
*edit*
Sorry for the double post, I accidentally hit post before I could copy and past into the post above.
Again, when Russia is bombing a country, you don't tell the country Russia is bombing to simmer down. That's ridiculous.
Of course. I don't actually expect anyone here to read Obama's mind. (Although, if anyone here can, insight into the VP pick would be appreciated).
It's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want us to lose a war. For him to say the surge was a mistake, when you consider how things were before the surge and how we're winning now in post-surge, that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say.
Well, the poll says "likely US voters", so I'm guessing the young voters are being factored out. Which, fair enough, they've taken measures to factor themselves out in the past elections, but with Obama I don't think that's something one can count on.
What is clear is that Obama's lead has fallen. CNN shows him with a two point lead, with that two points being in the margin of error. What can be taken away is that this is going to be a hell of a race.
Exactly. McCain's been hitting Obama hard and Obama's responses haven't been strong enough.
I think Obama needs to show his base and independents just why McCain would not be good for them. McCain is doing exactly that.
EDIT:
Jingoist rhetoric doesn't usually make a situation better. I believe Obama wasn't telling Georgia to "simmer down" but rather not to escalate the conflict to the point of ethnic strife. Saakashvili could tell his people to take their aggression out on the Russians living amongst them.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I though that the poll takes the demographic portions from the previous election. I could be very wrong, but either way it's almost and exact reversal from a month ago.
Anyone that thought otherwise was clearly too far under Obama's shadow to see otherwise.
I guess it does, I'm not sure what "likely voters" is meant to be taken as.
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.
So the sudden downturn in violence since the surge is a bad thing now?
Your answer, I gather, is: "Yes because it worked."
My answer: "No because it was more commitment to a mess I wish we hadn't been in in the first place."
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.
What a ******** response. What you need to get your mind around is that the war happened. You don't get the option of going back in time and undoing the war in Iraq. Your possibilities are:
A. Fail in Iraq
B. Succeed in Iraq
Which goes back to what I said before, it's one thing to oppose a war, it's another thing to want to lose a war. If Obama's trying to make the correct decision in 2003 by making a horrific decision now, he should not be our president.
The reduced violence in Iraq is the very core of the issue. McCain backed the surge, Obama didn't back the surge, and still won't back the surge even when it's been proven to work. If we're talking about who would make a better president, McCain certainly has the lead on foreign policy and Commander-in-Chief.
That's a false dilemma. Would could leave Iraq and then the Iraqis could "succeed" and drive out AQI themselves. The fate of Iraq does not have to rest upon only our shoulders.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Of course it isn't. We either succeed or fail in Iraq. If what comes out of Iraq is a government that can provide safety and stability for its people, success, if not failure. It only works one of two ways.
Yes the war happened. We won the war. The war is over. Now our troops are stationed in a foreign counrty in the middle of brewing civil war that we seem only able to contain by massive exertions of force. I'd like to see my friends come home instead of dying to prevent a bunch of people from having a civil war that a lot of them have been wanting to have for the last 1,000 years or so. I want my country to stop paying to rebuild a country that's literally sitting on billions of dollars of oil wealth. I want less involvement in Iraq, not more. Therefore, I dislike the surge.
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.
Or we stay in Iraq indefinitely. A third option.
Wouldn't that be the Iraqis succeeding instead of us?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Oh I get it. You would have liked it if we left Iraq in total chaos after taking out Saddam?
You think eternal war is an option?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Ever heard of Israel? The Thirty Years War? The Hundred Years War?
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.
At the current pace of progress we'll be in Iraq for awhile.
So if Obama is elected and pulls troops out in 16 months and then the Iraqis proceed to take matters into their own hands and stabilize their country we still get to take the credit?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
How can you be so selfish? You'd let these Iraqis kill themselves to save our own asses?
What about them?
It doesn't matter who gets the credit, as long as there is success.... sheesh...
Read the post I was responding to. I did quote it after all. Highroller was stating that perpetual conflict wouldn't happen. History says that the case might be otherwise.
That's very egalitarian of you. It's also irrelevant to what Nis was talking about.
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.
Ah, but currently, the prevention of this civil war is directly connected to whether we stay in Iraq or not.
What? The Hundred Year's war is still going on? Darn those war-like French people!!!
Yes. His point was to say that Iraq can succeed without us being there. However, do you honestly think that is possible right now?
oh yeah, I forgot. If it happened more than five minutes ago it's irrelevant. The point (that you're willfully ignoring) is that there are plenty of instances of conflicts that go on and on. Assuming that we will win anytime soon is foolish.
I don't think it's possible with us there. What's your point?
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.
No my point was that Highroller was presenting a false dilemma by saying we either succeed or fail in Iraq. I was pointing out that we could leave Iraq, the action being neither success nor failure, and the Iraqis themselves could succeed (regardless of chances). To then claim that the Iraqi success would be ours would be arrogant.
Basically I'm saying that there are more than two outcomes in Iraq.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
W
U
B
R
G
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.
(a) There is no active Iraq thread.
(b) Iraq is definitely relevant to the presidential race, however "unimportant" it may be since the Surge made it less media bait.
(c) Who died and made you mod?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.