Zogby: McCain Leads; Rasmussen: It's All Tied

Nick Gillespie | September 7, 2008

Take all of this for what you will, what's it worth, etc. But here are two polls about that there presidential election in November that show Republican John McCain doing well about Democrat Barack Obama:

The McCain/Palin ticket wins 49.7% support, compared to 45.9% backing for the Obama/Biden ticket, this latest online survey shows. Another 4.4% either favored someone else or were unsure. 

The Ticket Horserace	9-5/6	8-29/30
McCain-Palin	49.7%	47.1%
Obama-Biden	45.9%	44.6%
Others/Not sure	4.4%	8.3%

In the two-way contest in which just McCain and Obama were mentioned in the question, the result was slightly different, with McCain leading, 48.8% to 45.7%.

One-on-One Horserace	9-5/6
McCain	48.8%
Obama	45.7%
Others/Not sure	5.5%

In a Zogby Interactive survey conducted last weekend, just after the McCain announcement that Palin would join his ticket, McCain Palin won 47.1% support, while Obama/Biden won 44.6% support.

The interactive survey of 2,312 likely voters nationwide was conducted Sept. 5-6, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points.

More here.

In the first national [Rasumussen tracking] polling results based entirely on interviews conducted after Sarah Palin's acceptance speech, Barack Obama gets 46% of the vote and so does John McCain. When "leaners" are included, it's all even at 48%....

This past Tuesday, Obama's bounce peaked with the Democrat enjoying a six-percentage point advantage. Before the two conventions were held, Obama had consistently held a one or two point lead over McCain for most of August (see recent daily results).

Tracking Poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, tomorrow (Monday) will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after McCain's speech. By Tuesday or Wednesday, the net impact of both political conventions should be fairly clear....

Forty-two percent (42%) of voters say that economic issues are most important this year and Obama holds a 34-point advantage among these voters.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters say the national security issues are most important. Among these voters its McCain by 39.

More here.

Forget about Tuesday or Wednesday—I suspect we'll have a clearer sense of where things are in a week's time, after the memory of the conventions has faded (thank god) and we've got a solid week of slinging back and forth from the campaigns.

It does seem that the presidential debates (and to a lesser degree, the vice presidential version) might have a really serious impact on the presidential vote this time around. And it should be an interesting matchup, with two very different personalities and oratorical styles on display.

I'm very interested to see how Bob Barr fares over the next couple of week, too. He was pulling 5 percent in a Zogby poll a week or so back, and polled as high as 8 percent in an Ohio survey, but seems to have faded since then.

Comments

|9.7.08 @ 11:26AM|#

1. Zogby's a joke. Her released a poll showing a five point McCain lead in med-August, while every other poll from the period was between even and Obama +5.

2. By Tuesday or Wednesday, the net impact of both political conventions should be fairly clear.... The Tuesday after the Democratic convention showed the peak of Barack Obama's convention bounce. Rasmussen is saying that the overall effect of the conventions can be best seen during the peak of McCain's convention bounce. That, of course, is ridiculous. It's the end of the week, as Nick says, that will show us where the race actually stands once people have processed the conventions and everything surrounding them.

3. On the Sunday after the Democratic convention, Gallup's tracking poll had Obama up 6, and Rasmussen's had him up 3. On the Sunday after the Republican convention, Gallup has Obama up 2 and Rasmussen has the race even.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 11:29AM|#

You must be panicked, joe. And sexist. Or something.

|9.7.08 @ 11:33AM|#

Er, correction to #1 up thar.

Every other poll taken between the beginning of August and the beginning of the Democratic convention ranged between McCain +1 and Obama +5.

|9.7.08 @ 11:34AM|#

BDB,

There's nothing like a little panicky sex. Remember the Cold War?

Oh, wait, you're sixteen. ;-P

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 11:40AM|#

The American middle class doesn't want to see their taxes raised, their guns confiscated and a humiliating surrender to Islamic terrorism.

McCain/Palin 2008 !

|9.7.08 @ 11:42AM|#

The American middle class doesn't want to see their taxes raised

That's probably why they're leaning so heavily towards the candidate who proposes to cut them.

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 11:46AM|#

That's probably why they're leaning so heavily towards the candidate who proposes to cut them.

That is what this poll shows

The McCain/Palin ticket wins 49.7% support, compared to 45.9% backing for the Obama/Biden ticket

Just say NO to Obama's tax increase on the middle class.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 11:48AM|#

I could vote for McCain, and get to live through the Cold War vicariously .

|9.7.08 @ 11:51AM|#

You mean the Zogby/LOL poll, "Col?"

Seems to me we had a thread about an outlier Zogby poll recently.

|9.7.08 @ 11:57AM|#

I'm tired of Obama. He feels like an incumbent at this point. Go Palin!!

|9.7.08 @ 11:57AM|#

Brookings Institute Analysis of the McCain and Obama Tax plans.

Lowest 20%: McCain -$21 Obama -$617

Second 20%: McCain -$124 Obama -$950

Middle 20%: McCain -$282 Obama -$1035

Fourth 20%: McCain: -$513 Obama -$757

Wealthist 20%: McCain -$2856 Obama +$6770


It helps to actually do your homework, Col.

|9.7.08 @ 12:01PM|#

Apparently, Col Mustard is one of those people who thinks Middle Class means you only make $4.8 mil.

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 12:02PM|#

It helps to not believe what a socialist Democrat says in the campaign. Clinton promised middle class tax cuts too,until he was actually in office. Obama/Biden will raise EVERYONE'S taxes.

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 12:04PM|#

Of course you are OK with the gun confiscation and surrender to our enemies. Those are implicit campaign promises Obama will strive to keep.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Who are we surrendering to? Where will the ceremony be? What are the terms?

|9.7.08 @ 12:07PM|#

Numbers: all part of the socialist conspiracy.

Did you forget how to spell "Dhimmicrat?"

Tosser.

J|9.7.08 @ 12:18PM|#

joe, how accurate are those numbers (do you think) and are they likely to be biased in any way?

BDB|9.7.08 @ 12:20PM|#

It doesn't matter what either candidate is promising.

Come January, their economic advisers are going to say "We can't afford any of what you promised", and either one will listen to them. Just like 1993 and Bill Clinton.

|9.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#

Zogby is a JOKE. He kept polling and 'predicting' that Hillary would win.

Miss Scarlet|9.7.08 @ 12:26PM|#

oooh, colonel, come back to the lounge. I've got the rope...

|9.7.08 @ 12:33PM|#

Nick:

Since we're in a "bounce" period, I go by the Iowa Futures market WTA to give me the best snapshot. Of of right now, Obama is given 60% chance of winning by the gamblers:

Quotes current as of 11:15:03 CST, Sunday, September 07, 2008.

Symbol Bid Ask Last Low High Average
DEM08_WTA 0.600 0.612 0.603 0.600 0.622 0.611
REP08_WTA 0.390 0.397 0.396 0.390 0.397 0.395

|9.7.08 @ 12:40PM|#

J,

I think Brookings is extremely conservative (in the dictionary meaning, not the political meaning) in all of their policy analysis, and painfully cautious about avoiding bias.

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 12:41PM|#

joe, how accurate are those numbers (do you think) and are they likely to be biased in any way?

Brookings is fairly centrist.
They seem to get criticized from both the left and the right on a fairly regular basis.

A good sign, in my book.

J|9.7.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Thanks, that's certainly interesting then. I wonder how accurate it would be with what actually happens.

Pretty interesting, though.

Joe|9.7.08 @ 12:49PM|#

joe:

Could you provide some income ranges to define what is lowest quintile, 2nd lowest quintile, etc.

Thanks Buddy.

|9.7.08 @ 1:00PM|#

FYI, a recent talk on political polling at EconTalk: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/07/rivers_on_polli.html

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 1:00PM|#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Quintiles

Big J Joe, wikipedia is your friend on this kind of information.

|9.7.08 @ 1:07PM|#

The problem with using quintiles joe is that the reality is that the American middle class is so vast that basically it starts at the 5th percentile and ends around 98th percentile (about $180,000 a year in family income).

The top quintile starts at around 91,000 a year in family income which, while not bad, stretches the definition a bit to say those folks are wealthy. Generally those people wind up spending most of their take home pay.

It's always been the problem with Democratic tax policy: there's not enough money out there from the truly rich to pay for what they want to pay for and so the upper half of the middle class tends to get hammered. Sometimes it's in indirect ways (like bracket creep or the removal of certain kinds of deductions like sales tax) but generally that's where the government can make the most hay when it comes to tax revenues.

Soaking the rich inevitably winds up soaking the not doing too bad. You can imagine the folks in that category are pretty unamused. I'm not being overly critical of Obama's plan (I don't know much about it) but it seems unlikely to me that only the "rich" are going to get their taxes raised.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 1:09PM|#

There is the issue of bracket creep. Remember, the income tax started out as a tax for super-wealthy millionaires only (IMHO that's who it should before only, if we have one at all).

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 1:10PM|#

The problem with using quintiles joe is that the reality is that the American middle class is so vast that basically it starts at the 5th percentile and ends around 98th percentile (about $180,000 a year in family income).

I am curious about the skew in your distribution here.

Wouldn't you want to claim middle 90% (5% thru 95%)? Why only consider the top 2%?

Just curious.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 1:10PM|#

But I'm already convinced either one will raise taxes. McCain is going to do what the Democratic Congress wants domestically in exchange for starting a Cold War with Russia. Nice bargain, huh?

J|9.7.08 @ 1:20PM|#

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Is this the same analysis, just broken down differently?

J|9.7.08 @ 1:23PM|#

If so, I rather see Obama drop the tax increases and leave the cuts as a good start, but it is alot better than I would have thought anyway, if it approaches reality.

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 1:34PM|#

J,

Thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it.

It seems "middle class" would include the bottom 4 or 5 categories. In either case, Obama's plan is the "middle class tax cut."

According to the chart 60% of tax payers are below 67K. That makes me question the idea of using the very wide 90% of middle as a definition of "middle class" It may make more sense to use the middle 80% (10% to 80%), which (just eyeballing) would be the bottom 5 categories on the chart.

Hmm...

BDB|9.7.08 @ 1:35PM|#

I'm still waiting for the "middle class tax cut" Bill Clinton promised.

Politicians promises in elections are worthless.

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 1:39PM|#

Hi, everybody. I'm just another pathetic H&R right-wing troll. Move along, nothing to see here.

|9.7.08 @ 1:40PM|#

Joe, why are such a simplistic tool?

|9.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#

My point is simply that looking at percentiles instead of the raw incomes obscures the fact that the people in the 35th percentile are much closer in income (and overall lifestyle) to the folks in the 92nd percentile than the 92nd percentile is to the folks in the 99th percentile.

I'm not defining middle class by simple percentiles, but rather by the general standard of living. A family income of $150,000 a year hardly makes one super wealthy, but it does put them near the very top of the income distribution in the country (less than 6% of the country makes more than that). It's not accurate to lump them in with folks making $1 million a year or more, they're much more similar to the folks at the median income level than they are to the truly rich.

And although it's not nearly as dramatic a problem, the same dynamic that exists at the lower end of the spectrum (IE, taking 10% of the income of someone make $12,000 a year hurts them a lot more than taking 10% from someone making $32,000 a year): they're losing a lot larger percentage of their discretionary income than folks making millions if they're both paying the same tax rate.

joe|9.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#

Joe, why are such a simplistic tool?

As the scorpion said to the frog......

|9.7.08 @ 1:54PM|#

Don't know, rokinaar, why ask that question? Have in life been called things like that before. How about?

Mother is so ugly, parents had to tie a pork chop around neck to get the puppy to play with.

Nice one, Captain Pronoun.

|9.7.08 @ 1:58PM|#

"Lets take from this group and give to this one, and look how great and fair it'll all be".

Again, ... tools.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Still waiting to hear from Col. Mustard what country Obama is planning on surrendering to. I missed that one.

|9.7.08 @ 2:04PM|#

What former politician from either party has a history of following up on their campaign tax platforms since the history of elections? Daddy Bush "read my Lips", Clinton " wheres the tax cut?" baby Bush "here's tax cut while I start a War and borrow even more massive sums from China to finance it", Would Obama really raise taxes on the wealthiest(capital gains), like he said during the primary when he received so much financing from the financial sector? Unlikely as every career politicians only goal is reelection. About as likely baby Bush would fix energy policy with all his energy sector financing.

All parties need to cut spending to be considered fiscally conservative. McCain's promises of spending reform are likely as flimsy as Obama's promises of tax cuts/increases. Palin gave her citizens huge rebates after taxing the Energy sector, and then borrowed to pay for State infrastructure. Oh yeah republicans she's what you've been looking for, another reduce tax/increase spending Bush faux-conservative once McCain kicks the bucket. Likewise, Obama's gonna cut taxes on anybody with all his proposed social programs a Democratic congress will be fast to endorse?

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 2:09PM|#

Voros McCracken

Thanks for the follow up.

A family income of $150,000 a year hardly makes one super wealthy, but it does put them near the very top of the income distribution in the country (less than 6% of the country makes more than that).

You raise an important point, but it is hard for me to buy some arbitrary definition of wealthy. Wealthy is always relative. If you make 50K, then 150K is pretty wealthy.

I have lived on both sides of that line in my life (part of the price of being a perpetual student). Some one making $150,000 a year has discretionary income on a whole different level than someone at 50-60k.

You make a statement above that those making 91,000 a year tend to spend most of their take home pay.

Setting aside the ambiguity of "most" for the moment, it is true that even when people are making a comfortable living with an income in that range, they often live beyond their means and spend their money on things that they don't need or can't afford. But those choices don't make them any less well off compared to those making 1/2 to 1/3rd their income.

|9.7.08 @ 2:25PM|#

J, NM,

According to that same source - the Brookings/Tax Policy Center study - the top 1% would fare as follows under the two plans:

McCain: -$31,943

Obama: +$114,238

That is for those making $619,561 per annum.

If the average person in the top 20% gets a $2856 tax cut from McCain, but the top 5% of that quintile (ie, the top 1%) gets a $31,943 tax cut, that means that people in the 80-99% range average a tax cut of $2562.

If the average person in the top 20% get a $6770 tax increase under the Obama plan, but the top 1% gets a $114,238 increase, that's a $5684 increase for people in the 80-99% range.

However, that top quintile begins at $117,535 per year, and Obama's plan includes no tax increases on people earning below about $250,000, so if we assume that that figure is right about at the 90% level, that means that half the people in the top quintile get no tax increase, the people above 99% get a $114k tax increase, so the people between 90% and 99% get a $2351 tax hike.

So the Obama plan is, roughly:

Bottom 20%: -$617

Second 20%: -$950

Middle 20%: -$1035

Fourth 20%: -$757

Next 10%: About even

Next 9%: +$2351

Top 1%: +$114,238 (This is an average for the top 1%, which includes a population with the lowest income a little above $600k, and the highest over $1 billion.)

All figures subject to my assumptions, Brookings' assumptions, and joez math skeelz.

|9.7.08 @ 2:26PM|#

"Lets take from this group and give to this one, and look how great and fair it'll all be".

Ladies and gentleman, this is an individual who has completely given up on that whole "numbers" thing.

tools, I tell you! tools!

|9.7.08 @ 2:26PM|#

Linky linky.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-082108-na-taxplans-g,0,7599987.graphic

|9.7.08 @ 2:28PM|#

And as I said the problem with the sorts of tax plans Obama proposes is they always come up short when it comes to revenues at which point you either wind up further expanding the deficit (which everyone regardless of income eventually pays for anyway and seems to be part and parcel of the McCain plan) or you wind up having to lower the boom on the upper part of the middle class.

Cutting spending is going to be prohibitively difficult in this political environment regardless of who wins, and since Obama clearly wants to increase spending in some areas (that's not a controversial statement is it?), it seems like the above plan is going to ring up deficits or require a modification.

In other words both plans look like figments of each of the candidates imagination. With a current deficit and significant spending cuts unlikely, a net reduction in the effective collective tax burden seems like a fairytale to me.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 2:28PM|#

The only way to balance the budget if is there is a huge economic boom sometime in the next few years.

|9.7.08 @ 2:32PM|#

My point is simply that looking at percentiles instead of the raw incomes obscures the fact that the people in the 35th percentile are much closer in income (and overall lifestyle) to the folks in the 92nd percentile than the 92nd percentile is to the folks in the 99th percentile.

That's a fine point, Voros.

I'll note that the implications of Obama's tax plan for people at the 92% level look at lot more like those for people at the 35% level than for people above the 99% level, as well.

In other words both plans look like figments of each of the candidates imagination. Oh, certainly. They are, however, useful in providing a general sense of the candidates' general approach to the issue.

|9.7.08 @ 2:45PM|#

joe
I wonder if you've got any buyers remorse at this point. Here we are with a crazy unpopular Prez and his party's candidate is at the least closing the gap every day and is possibly taking the lead.

The Dems will win seats in the House and Senate and quite possibly lose the White House. That's some pretty strong evidence of a poor candidate choice...Overreaching by the Dems, and as I've said here before, considering the Dems have had exactly two Prez winners since 1964 that is amazing...The arrogance is akin to that of the Bushies, clouding reality...

BDB|9.7.08 @ 2:48PM|#

MNG-

McCain's ceiling is 48%. Obama's high water mark has been 51%. After both their conventions, respectively.

That will probably be the final result if history is any guide.

|9.7.08 @ 2:55PM|#

I can think of some tickets that would have made this election about as close as Super Bowl with the Minnesota Vikings in it.

Mark Warner-Bill Richardson.
Mark Warner-Barak Obama.
Evan Bayh-Barak Obama (or Bill Richardson)

But Obama/Biden? WTF?

|9.7.08 @ 3:04PM|#

To win Presidential elections Democrats need to nominate noted centrists. And they should ideally be ones that have been successful in regions not noted for being Democratic strongholds.

Oh, and they should not be black guys with Islamic names and virtually no experience in winning competitive state-wide races.

What
the
F*ck

|9.7.08 @ 3:09PM|#

MNG,

So, when Obama was up by 6-8 points the weekend after his convention, you said it didn't mean anything. When McCain can maybe, or maybe not, get to even at the same point after his convention, it's yet another in your unbroken chain of comments about how much trouble Obama is in.

No, MNG, I do not have any "buyer's remorse" over the fact that the Democrats nominated the best-performing candidate in over a decade.

Doom. Doooom. DOOOOOMMMM!!!

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:13PM|#

MNG, you can start freaking out when McCain outperforms Obama's ceiling of 52%. Until then, chill.

|9.7.08 @ 3:16PM|#

joe
You're right that I was just not impressed by Obama's 6-8 point lead, just like I'm not impressed when Ohio State beats Ohio U by less than two touchdowns. Everything is in the Democrats favor right now. This should be a nearly done deal with some final comeuppance for the GOP for the last eight years of Carter level mismanagement, but instead the Dems overreached with a candidate who is barely winning despite all these factors that should be leading to a Dem blowout.

In some strange irony it is the very people who cursed Bush the most for the past eight years who then went and picked such a liability ridden candidate who will be responsible for making sure that there will be no backhand to Bush Inc..

|9.7.08 @ 3:21PM|#

A big advantage for the McCain campaign is that having the solid war-hero white guy as the nominee they were free to experiment with a "diversity" pick that would lose them nearly no votes and gain them some. Even a strident sexist or racist would not be offended much by a woman or minority as the number two pick (after all they would find it a-ok that a woman work for a man). Having the diversity pick at the head of the ticket hurts in two ways, it turns off chunks of the electorate on its face and then prevents you from picking a diversity pick as your number 2.

One of many reasons Obama was a poor choice.
Another reason? Funny name, middle name Hussein for God's sake.

Another reason? History in urban politics makes it likely cuckoo associations exist (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers).

Another reason? Little experience.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:23PM|#

MNG, did you fall into a coma in mid-March and wake-up just now?

|9.7.08 @ 3:23PM|#

"MNG, you can start freaking out when McCain outperforms Obama's ceiling of 52%. Until then, chill."

He might not have to ever, even on election day. I can see a scenario where he loses the popular vote something like 51 to 49 and wins the electoral by eking out wins in places like Colorado, Virginia and Ohio. If Obama wins his battlegrounds by 5 or 6 and McCain wins his by 1 or 2, he might be able to do it.

Granted it would be bedlam again, but ultimately when the dust settled McCain would be president. It might spell the end of the Electoral College (which would bother me), but ultimately he'd be in.

I don't think we'll know for sure who will be president until early morning on the day after the election, but that's just my guess (partially because I think Colorado is the decider).

|9.7.08 @ 3:24PM|#

You were, however, incredibly impressed when a single Zogby poll came out on August 20, showing a McCain lead, despite a bunch of polls both immediately before and immediately after showing Obama leads, some quite large.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 20, 2008, 8:33pm | #

Yay, Obama is blowing it. Who'd have thunk it?

When we are at war in Iraq and Iran, and when we have two more Alito's on the SCOTUS, I hope the Obama supporters sit up and say "but we voted to heal the nation's racial wounds, what could be more noble than that?"
Mr. Nice Guy | August 20, 2008, 8:36pm | #

"The headline should be "Holy Shit! An unknown black man neck and neck with a white war hero!"

If followed by a commentary: "Who the fuck would pick an unknown black man to run against a white war hero?"

despite all these factors that should be leading to a Dem blowout. Non-incumbent elections are almost never blowouts. Since the end of World War 2, presidential elections that don't include a sitting president have been decided by an average of 3.8%. You are misreading history, acting as if 1980 is a relevant comparison, and ignoring the historical record for comparable elections.

Doom. Doom! DOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!

|9.7.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Good speaking can't make up for that. There are a lot of voices out there in the media, the chance to listen to a speech from beginning to end and be convinced by it, man, those days have been gone.

Joe Biden? What the hell!?!

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Voros-

The odds of that are extremely small. He wins the popular vote 52-48 give or take a point. Small popular vote win, electoral vote landslide. That's how I see things right now.

Obama is going to turnout the votes in big cities way too much to lose the popular vote while winning electorally. Only people who have their base in the small states (read: Republicans) can pull off winning the EV will losing the PV.

|9.7.08 @ 3:27PM|#

I can see a scenario where he loses the popular vote something like 51 to 49 and wins the electoral by eking out wins in places like Colorado, Virginia and Ohio.

I can't. The factors that would allow McCain to eke out a win in those places would also boost his vote totals in other states, like the Dakotas and Montana, and Virgnia and NC, that have long given Republicans big leads.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:28PM|#

Indeed, I see a much more likely scenario where McCain barely wins the EV and loses the PV. THAT would be bedlam.

J|9.7.08 @ 3:33PM|#

One thing I agree with MNG about, although probably for different reasons:

Joe Biden? What the hell!?!

|9.7.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Obama didn't pick Obama for campaigning, but because he wants him to be his vice-president.

Biden is a Bush/Gore/Cheney type of VP.

Palin is a Quayle/Agnew type.

|9.7.08 @ 3:36PM|#

er, Biden.

|9.7.08 @ 3:38PM|#

Biden generated none of the energy that Palin did. Perhaps he was needed to try to shore up all those working class white voters that soundly rejected Obama in the primaries, but that proves part of my point: if Obama had not been the nominee there would have been no need to "waste" the VP pick on such a bloc.

|9.7.08 @ 3:41PM|#

"Obama didn't pick Obama for campaigning, but because he wants him to be his vice-president.

Biden is a Bush/Gore/Cheney type of VP."

I agree, but Obama should have thought that he would need every advantage to actually WIN first. Dems don't win the Presidency much since 1964 so that would have seemed to be relevant.

The Dems learned the wrong lesson from 2006. Barak Obama is not Heath Shuler...

|9.7.08 @ 3:44PM|#

"Indeed, I see a much more likely scenario where McCain barely wins the EV and loses the PV."

That's what I meant. The "he" referred to McCain.

Obama has to flip another state (of decent size) besides Iowa and New Mexico and he's at best neck and neck in all of them. The tiniest of McCain boosts could see him beat Obama by a nose in Ohio, Virginia and Colorado which would be enough for 274-264 for McCain. I don't think such a boost would need to be big enough to overcome an Obama PV lead.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:46PM|#

Ah I got it Voros. I thought you were talking about Obama. Obama has a lot of paths to 270 though. If he can hold all the Kerry states +IA and NM and win one of the following: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Florida, Ohio.

If he can build a decent lead in Florida it's over EVEN IF McCain manages to win Michigan (doubtful, still). Same with Ohio.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 3:47PM|#

I think the chances that he will win AT LEAST one of the above mentioned states is pretty good.

|9.7.08 @ 3:47PM|#

In 92 a bad economy alone helped Clinton to the White House. That plus an unpopular war so closely associated with the GOP Prez should have made this election the Dems to lose.

It was interesting to see the change in my lifelong Dem buddies after the 2006 elections. It went from "man, we have to do what we can in the hopes of finally getting a win" to "now the nation is on our side and we can finally get the kind of candidate we like." There was all this debate about who would have the better chance to win in 08 and then it suddenly stopped and there was all this "phew now I can finally vote for someone who represents exactly what I stand for"

As I said above, that was stupid. 2006 was full of these centrist Dem candidates winning seats.

Kolohe|9.7.08 @ 3:49PM|#

This is the first time I've notice the 'compliance fund' McCain ad.

That's one heck of a loophole.

|9.7.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Again, the two faces that I think epitomized the Dems 2006 victory were Heath Shuler and Jim Webb. The lesson: IF the GOP is earning some big-time unpopularity and IF you run really careful candidates you can win by a little bit. Otherwise Dems lose unless you are in solid blue territory.

|9.7.08 @ 3:56PM|#

BDB
If HRC was the candidate then I think FL would have been wrapped up for the Dems, and likely Ohio as well. This would probably have made VA and Iowa go red of course, but hell, that's a good trade!

I do wonder if HRC could have gotten away with Richardson as VP (by gotten away I mean the danger, as I noted above, of having two "diversity" picks on your ticket). If she could have pulled it off she could have maybe scored a Western state or two.

In the primaries Obama tended to score his wins in places that would probably not go Dem anyway. In key battleground states he tended to demonstrate his inablity to win support. I thought that smelled like trouble from the get=go.

Granted though that HRC had some pretty big liabilities herself that could have been exploited. Neither she nor Obama were good choices.

|9.7.08 @ 3:59PM|#

"I think the chances that he will win AT LEAST one of the above mentioned states is pretty good."

The problem is they're not independent events. If we know that Obama loses Colorado, for example, it then makes it very unlikely he wins Nevada and much less likely he wins Ohio, Virginia, Florida, etc.

IOW, it isn't as if he has a 55% chance of winning each of 5 states, so the chances of him winning at least one is 98%. It doesn't work that way since whether he wins Colorado would tell us important information about his chances of winning the other states.

Also I believe that Nevada as the only other flip would only get him to the nightmare of 269. However if he wins Nevada he'll probably win Colorado.

|9.7.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Imagine a Warner-Richardson ticket. VA would very likely go blue, as would NM and perhaps some other formerly red Western states. Ohio, PA and FL would be safe. This election would be over.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 4:00PM|#

I think Obama just had a YouTube moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75X2S8SgwbU

|9.7.08 @ 4:04PM|#

In 92 a bad economy alone helped Clinton to the White House. That plus an unpopular war so closely associated with the GOP Prez should have made this election the Dems to lose.

Incumbent election.

MNG, you seem to confuse the concepts of "safe win" and "big win."

Again, the two faces that I think epitomized the Dems 2006 victory were Heath Shuler and Jim Webb. That's certainly how it was reported in the press. If you actually look through the seats the Democrats flipped, there were a lot more progressives winning in relatively even districts than conservative Dems winning in strongly Republican districts.

|9.7.08 @ 4:25PM|#

"McCain vows to have Democrats in Cabinet"

Wow - who's being presumptuous now? Talk about ego, Mccain is talking about staffing a Cabinet already. I think he has seriously overrated himself, and probably believes that he is a legend.... in his own mind.
He has other things to worry about... like knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia... Liebermann isn't going to be there for him in the debates... Palin might be... but Lieberman won't.

Kolohe|9.7.08 @ 4:45PM|#

If HRC was the candidate then I think FL would have been wrapped up for the Dems, and likely Ohio as well. This would probably have made VA and Iowa go red of course, but hell, that's a good trade!

I disagree with some of the premises here.

Florida's Republicans have managed to do a decent job of running the state (or at least the appearance of such, and to a degree that distances them from the national party)

And the areas of Florida that are taking an economic hit tend to be bluer (because of that's where the real estate run-up and meltdown tended to be more pronounced, and that's where more of the tourism is)

So conditions are favorable to a generic republican over a generic democrat in Florida (or because I don't have #'s handy and party registration probably is counter to this assertion, I will revise and say 'more favorable than the national trend and more or less similar what it was in '04')

Most importantly, I think Obama is a better candidate to win Florida than H. Clinton - for the same reason as Virginia and Colorado.

All three states purpleness is caused by "new" blue; transplants and/or moderate republican switchovers as the state gets more urban and the professional class enlargens. This is Obama's core group. It was Clinton's (Bill edition) but Obama managed to bring it over to his side throughout 2007 - which is one of the two reasons (the other being giving up on the black vote) why Clinton (Hillary edition) lost.

|9.7.08 @ 5:24PM|#

Hillary might well have wrapped up Florida, and might have made it a race in Arkansas and Missouri, but she would not be winning, or even competitive, in Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Dakota, Virginia, or North Carolina.

Personally - and I'm way out on a limb here - I think Florida is a light-red state and turning redder.

Kolohe|9.7.08 @ 5:43PM|#

Personally - and I'm way out on a limb here - I think Florida is a light-red state and turning redder.

I am equally going out on a limb and say the same thing about Ohio.

Kolohe|9.7.08 @ 5:45PM|#

Because a similar but not entirely congruent dynamic with what's happened to West Virginia.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 5:49PM|#

I see West Virginia being traded for Virginia, and Colorado being traded for Ohio in the red state/blue state dynamic.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 5:49PM|#

Also, were McCain not running, Arizona would be blue due to the alienation of the hispanic vote.

|9.7.08 @ 5:52PM|#

Joe Biden? What the hell!?!

As unusual as it is for me to agree with MNG, I echo that thought. Joe Biden ran for president twice. He got ~86 votes, total. He may add half that to Obama's tally as VP.

Surprisingly to me, this is shaping up to be a close race.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 5:54PM|#

If the next batch of state polls show Michigan and to a lesser extent New Hampshire breaking for Obama the outcome is not in doubt.

It would be extremely unlikely for McCain to sweep all the rest of the swing states, which he would have to do, if that turns out to be the case. He will be on defense everywhere.

|9.7.08 @ 6:20PM|#

What ever happened to that "McCain will win Hispanics, and Hispanics won't vote for a black candidate" thing, anyway?

Obama is cleaning up among them, with 30 to 40+ point leads. McCain's going to do worse than Bush.

|9.7.08 @ 6:21PM|#

"Hillary might well have wrapped up Florida, and might have made it a race in Arkansas and Missouri, but she would not be winning, or even competitive, in Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Dakota, Virginia, or North Carolina."

I think HRC would have taken Florida and Ohio. She would have blown Virginia and NC. Neither she nor Obama had any chance of Montana or Dakota. And, she would not have had to name someone to appeal to working class white Catholics like Obama felt the need to do so her VP choice could have helped swing a Western state.

Here is a list of key states HRC won: Arkansas, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and New Mexico vs. a list of key stats Obama won: Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Note that PA and OH are the meatiest states in that list easily.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 6:33PM|#

Joe, the Republicans blew their image with people like Tancredo so badly that even McCain--a guy from a border state that authored a friendly immigration bill--can't repair it in one cycle.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 6:36PM|#

Not only Tancredo, but also every single GOP Presidential debate being about how much immigrants suck and how they're going to put land mines on the border (you can thank Mittens here, too) really fucked them over too.

|9.7.08 @ 6:54PM|#

Voros McCracken | September 7, 2008, 1:07pm

The problem with using quintiles joe is that the reality is that the American middle class is so vast that basically it starts at the 5th percentile and ends around 98th percentile (about $180,000 a year in family income).

Wow, is this the real Voros McCracken posting? Has he posted here before and I just missed it?

|9.7.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Not only Tancredo, but also every single GOP Presidential debate being about how much immigrants suck and how they're going to put land mines on the border (you can thank Mittens here, too) really fucked them over too.

[whisper]*Ahem* Ron Paul didn't exactly sound immigrant friendly or libertarian on the issue.[/whisper]

Yeah, Tancredo and Romney sure were fucked up there.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 7:04PM|#

J sub, yeah, but Ron Paul isn't seen as exactly a mainstream Republican. But I agree he didn't help either.

The Republicans took all the careful courting of the Hispanic vote Bush did (to the point he was getting north of 40%), and threw it off a cliff.

|9.7.08 @ 7:05PM|#

Polls mean nothing. HA! They talk to a couple thousand or so people....and that is suppose to mean what the country wants. Sit tight, you will all have an answer soon. No matter who wins, there will be a lot of unhappy people. Personally, you can choose a war hero or a dreamer...havn't a clue who it will be.

|9.7.08 @ 7:24PM|#

The Republicans took all the careful courting of the Hispanic vote Bush did (to the point he was getting north of 40%), and threw it off a cliff.

Arab-Americans used to be a big Republican constituency, too.

Now? Hi. I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 7:30PM|#

Yeah that's very true. Muslims are socially conservative, usually pro-life. One would think a natural constituency for Republicans, but 9/11 and the LGF crowd kinda messed that up.

East Indians also used to vote Republican. Until macaca.

|9.7.08 @ 7:52PM|#

The GOP shooting itself in the foot with Hispanics will cause them long term problems, for sure. Me, I'm more worried that this present administration will not be properly repudiated. Everyone acknowledges that in the future elections should be Dem friendly, but I think rather than dwell on that they should focus on getting their ass handed to them for the past four decades and try to strategize a bit to win NOW.

I defended HRC upthread as a candidate that probably would have run stronger against McCain. I think that, but don't take me for defending HRC. I hate her quite a bit and actually like Obama quite a bit. He's just a poor choice. Now, as I said upthread, Mark Warner or Evan Bayh would be walking through this election. I can't think of one state where they would run weaker than Obama and several where they would run stronger, especially with the kind of running mate they could afford to have picked.

|9.7.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Of course, I like McCain quite a bit too. He's like John Warner of Arlen Spector, a man of real courage and integrity. The GOP chose well.

|9.7.08 @ 7:55PM|#

Palin? Not so much. She's like, a lightweight, like. But less scary than a lot of fundies I can think of he could have picked...

|9.7.08 @ 8:05PM|#

This is one conservative female voter that is sick of the games played in GOP politics.
This is not the time for that. We need to get the country back on its feet again.
Rudy Guiliani and the way some acted at the republican convention was an absolute joke. He up there giggling about Obama when things are not good with the economy,etc.
Just sick of GOP

|9.7.08 @ 8:13PM|#

They keep saying American's aren't stupid but this is a disgrace. With the high cost of gas, foreclosure, food, etc. Americans would rather have a old man in the White House or should I say this so call women rather than change - I foresee an increase in homelessness, more foreclosures, more starvation, no change in energy - McCain /Palin will be worse than the same. How long must the poor and middle class suffer before they say "ENOUGH"!

|9.7.08 @ 8:13PM|#

I'm sure a bland centrist would be really racking up the lead against John McCain, because people want an echo, not a choice.

And boy would he get that turnout rocking on election day. Woo-hoo!

BDB|9.7.08 @ 8:29PM|#

Didn't Gore and Kerry try running as centrists and blow it already anyway?

Anyway this time the Republicans are trying to be the echo of the Democrats (We're change too! REALLY!)

|9.7.08 @ 8:38PM|#

I know I'm late to the party, but isn't middle class a percentile thing by definition? If you're in the 95th percentile, you're not a middle class voter. You may be an upper middle class voter, but you're not middle class. If you make $150K a year you're making 3x the median income. If your illiteracy was as bad as your innumeracy, your posts would look like this:

ifdj;firkjf disjdisud jdisjdh jd!oissdn jdsk jdk?sud hjdy jjdyud jsu jd leoi.

As for HRC, she'd be eaten alive too. All of the uber nastiness that Obama didn't bust out, McCain would. By the way, how is it that the Keating Five hasn't been brought up by the Obama campaign over and over. If I ran that campaign, I would follow up the Abramoff indictment with, "McCain, Keating, Abramoff, McCain, Keating, Abramoff" ad nauseum.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 8:43PM|#

If I were Obama I'd be hammering away at his age and temper. Those are the two things that scare me the most about him.

|9.7.08 @ 8:58PM|#

Kerry was well known as a leftist figure so running to the center was his only option. He was a terrible choice.

Gore actually ran away from Clinton and to the left (thanks Donna Brazile). Gore would have been a easy winning candidate this year btw. I'm sure he did not run because it seemed "inevitable" that HRC would win (thanks crazy feminists).

"I'm sure a bland centrist would be really racking up the lead against John McCain, because people want an echo, not a choice.

And boy would he get that turnout rocking on election day. Woo-hoo!"

People are fine with an echo. In fact, often when they get that real "choice" (i.e., Goldwater or McGovern) they balk.

People don't want someone who is so easy to attack. Like a bi-racial candidate whose dad was an African citizen. Or who was raised part of the time in Indonesia (the average American can really relate to that, eh?). Or whose middle name is "Hussein." Or who, as an urban politician, inevitably has connections to embarrasments like Wright and Ayers. Etc.

The GOTV would have been easy for ANY Dem candidate considering that they have been shut out of the White House the past eight years and it has been inhabited by one of the most hated figures from the Left's point of view in a while. C'mon joe, just admit it, Obama was a stupid swinging for the fences when a double at most was all that was needed. Face it joe, Obama supporters have given us FOUR more years of GOP rule. Thanks.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:02PM|#

If Gore ran to the left why did Nader get so many votes?

Anyway I still think Gore really, really blew it in 2000. All he had to do was use the playbook Papy Bush used in '88 and reverse it.

|9.7.08 @ 9:05PM|#

"Anyway this time the Republicans are trying to be the echo of the Democrats (We're change too! REALLY!)"

And it will work. It is working. The election is not about W and his colossal mismanagement anymore, but rather whether you are ready to elect a black guy with an Islamic name with an African dad who played Chicago urban politics for years. Jesus, America has come a long way lately but WTF!? I mean really, why not nominate a gay athiest and just ask the American people to refer to the Angels of their Better Natures? When wish replaces thought...

|9.7.08 @ 9:10PM|#

Gore ran a terrible campaign. Clinton was popular then and he ran away from him, and he ran away from the proven winning DLC playbook and more like Mondale.

In addition choosing Lieberman was insane. Nuts. I don't say that out of hindsight, I mean, what the fuck was that guy supposed to carry? CT? It was the worst pick I can think of, other than Edwards or Biden.

|9.7.08 @ 9:10PM|#

Doomed. Doomed! DOOOOOOOMED!

Sure, there's never been a time McCain has led in the polls, but, well...DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!

I mean, he got a convention bounce! He never would have gotten a convention bounce if an unlikeable white guy had won the Democratic nomination.

DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Lieberman was supposed to carry Florida by getting out the Jewish vote. Damn near did (or actually did, depending on your opinion). And NJ (which believe it or not was thought to be in play) for the same reason.

|9.7.08 @ 9:12PM|#

Gore ran a terrible campaign.

Wait a second, I thought picking a centrist white guy from the South was all that mattered? What's all this about needing a likeable candidate with a sharp strategic sense?

Demographics uber alles! I mean, just imagine six months of that Mark Warner speech from the convention. What could possibly guarantee electoral victory better than that?

Doomed. Doomed! DOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 9:14PM|#

MNG,

I will say it again.
You are projecting your uncomfortableness with Obama's "otherness" onto the public. It is bizarre.

Very few people are freaked by his name, his skin color, or his dad's nationality.

WFT is right.

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#

"WFT"

Or

WTF...

Your choice.

|9.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#

If this was a race that was going back and forth, or one where McCain had any sort of a lead other than immediately following his convention, MNG, I'd just be telling you to put things in perspective.

But your steadfast, determined, evidence-averse pessimism has surpassed all of that. You're a border-line troll at this point; I doubt you even mean what you write anymore. You're just asking like Neil, or SIV.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#

I don't think SIV was on-board until Palin, for some odd reason.

Neu Mejican|9.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#

MNG's xenophobia on the immigration threads, however, fits comfortably with the "Obama is too weird for us 'Mericans to swallow" meme.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:20PM|#

Speaking of "otherness", I feel like Palin is way more "other" to me than Obama.

|9.7.08 @ 9:21PM|#

"Wait a second, I thought picking a centrist white guy from the South was all that mattered? "

Yes, like the only two Dem candidates that have won the Presidency since 1968.

Gore ran to the left and away from Clinton, which was foolish. As it was he came closer than Kerry did to winning.

"I mean, just imagine six months of that Mark Warner speech from the convention."

Just imagine six months without ads about Wright or Ayers. Or six months without internet campaigns about Indonesian schools and people named Hussein. Or six months where the NRA says "hell the Democratic candidate is Ok this year" and where the average white family is asked to judge between the admitted failed GOP President's policies and this inoffensive white businessman. Yeah, that would really suck for the Dems....

|9.7.08 @ 9:27PM|#

DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!

That's why he had an unbroken lead from the time he captured the nomination until the Republican convention, often approaching 50%: because people just won't vote for him.

Just imagine six months without ads about Wright or Ayers Um, like the last four months? Oh, no, you mean like the good old days, when the Republicans didn't run any culture-war negative ads against that Southern white centrist, Bill Clinton.

Just imagine six months without ads about Wright or Ayers. Or six months without internet campaigns about Indonesian schools and people named Hussein. Or six months where the NRA says "hell the Democratic candidate is Ok this year" and where the average white family is asked to judge between the admitted failed GOP President's policies and this inoffensive white businessman. Yeah, that would really suck for the Dems....

I'd rather imagine an unbroken four months period when the Democrat was never behind. Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine that, because we just lived through it, and the only thing that ended it was a convention bump no different from that enjoyed by Walter Mondale. Carter didn't deliver that. Heck, Bill Clinton didn't deliver that in 1992, when George HW Bush was a lot less popular than John McCain.

You're projecting. You, individual, MNG, are very uncomfortable with the man's demographics. America disagrees.

|9.7.08 @ 9:30PM|#

Just imagine six months without ads about Wright or Ayers. Or six months without internet campaigns about Indonesian schools and people named Hussein.

He only hits me cuz I'm stupid and clumsy. If I could just do better, he wouldn't hit me no more. I've just gotta be better. It's me.

|9.7.08 @ 9:31PM|#

NM
I grew up in the South. Obama is just an unelectable quantity there and in many areas of the US.

His name is funny. It's not just funny, the name "Hussein" has become an iconic object of demonization in the U.S. It would be like a candidate named "Adolph."

He's also black. I think it is a terrible thing, but let us recognize that a black man has won statewide office about 3 times in the US since Reconstruction.

But wait, there's more! He's bi-racial, with a white mom and black dad (Mandingo?). And his dad was African. Yeah, noone has ever been funny about interracial relationships and black guys poling young white gals...That's not gonna turn off anybody here in the USA! C'mon...

OK, did I mention his inexperience running in high profile campaigns where you can see someone either 1. lacking skeletons or 2. can overcome them? Well, if he can't do 2 then no time like the present where the PRESIDENCY is on line to test that out!

Terrible candidate. Terrible. WTF (sorry NM, my daughter often grabs me while typing so it's not always 100% correct).

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:31PM|#

"But wait, there's more! He's bi-racial, with a white mom and black dad (Mandingo?)"

I just laughed out loud at that. Seriously.

|9.7.08 @ 9:33PM|#

I grew up in the South.

Gee, you don't say.

|9.7.08 @ 9:36PM|#

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107689/Early-Gallup-Road-Map-McCainObama-Matchup.aspx

Scroll to the bottom. The South is the most culturally, politically isolated region of the country.

The west, north, and east all look one way, and the south looks another. Running scared of what southern conservatives might think is a loser strategy. It wasn't in 1976. It wasn't in 1992. It is in 2008.

|9.7.08 @ 9:40PM|#

You keep watching his lead get smaller, smaller, and then McCain is leading, and pretend to not be worried...

"He only hits me cuz I'm stupid and clumsy."

Well, maybe not, but who wants a stupid and clumsy candidate (with this metaphor one who has such insance ties)?

"Oh, no, you mean like the good old days, when the Republicans didn't run any culture-war negative ads against that Southern white centrist, Bill Clinton."

I would have picked Harkin back then (actually back then I liked Jerry Brown, who was kind of a white Obama, but I am wiser now). At least Clinton, who had many liabilities, had proven himself in several rough and tumble campaigns in Arkansas. And was not named Barak Hussein Obama....

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:41PM|#

Srssly, the thing about his name is so stale now they had to make up that it's really "Muhammad".

|9.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#

Keep laughing BDB and joe, as Obama's "lead" gets smaller and smaller. This should be a Democratic year. But not for Obama. Hmmmm, why is that?

Look, I deplore anyone who would change their vote because the guy's name is funny, or because his middle name is Hussein (search this site and see my comments on that). Or because the guy is black and bi-racial and has an African dad and lived outside the country for a while. I don't think there is any real connection to Ayers, I've argued that here. That is all crazy. But I am realistic to know that not everyone in this nation is like me. The Dems seem not to be and the result will be: that's ok GOP for the last eight years, have four more!

Warner or Bayh, they would take this in a cakewalk. And they would have governed just like Obama. Hell, he would have made a great and less offensive VP.

SIV|9.7.08 @ 9:48PM|#

I bet Bob Barr's fall in the polls corresponds to McCain adding Palin to the ticket.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 9:50PM|#

Usually third party candidates start to fade as election day approached. I doubt it has much to do with your girl-crush Palin.

|9.7.08 @ 9:50PM|#

You keep watching his lead get smaller, smaller.. No, I don't. This was a completely manufactured media story. Before the conventions, Obama had a remarkably, historically unprecedented, steady lead of 2-4 points. There were not flip-flops in the lead, and it never got larger than that. You just looked at every outlier poll in one direction, and one direction only, and freaked out about it. I told you after you freaked out about the August 20th Zogby poll - which you threw a holy queen of a tantrum over - that is was an outlier, and that it would quickly be followed by a bunch of polls in the familiar small-Obama-lead range, and what happened? There were a bunch of polls released in the next week showing exactly that small Obama lead. You completely ignored them.

Then, Obama got a big convention bounce, went up over 50%, grew his lead to 6-8 points, and you completely ignored that. As did I, because it's just a convention bounce. And then McCain gets a convention bounce, too, like every candidate from either party has done since the beginning of polling, and you're back to your mooing "Dooomed! Dooooomed!"

Well, maybe not, but who wants a stupid and clumsy candidate You really can't see anything but the man's color and name, can you? A stupid, clumsy candidate? You are delusional, or you are putting on an act.

Get this through your head: no Democratic candidate in your lifetime has performed this well in a campaign. No Democratic candidate since LBJ was an incumbent has held an unbroken lead from April through the Republican convention. None. Never happened. Not Carter, running against Nixon's VP two years after Watergate. Not Bill Clinton, the most talented (southern, White, male) politician of our time, running against an incumbent Republican in the middle of a recession. Nobody.

If Barack Obama was as weak a candidate as your personal reflexes tell you, he would not have set the record for the longest unbroken period leading the polls in modern history. We don't have to guess at this anymore; we have a track record now, actual evidence from the world outside your head.

|9.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#

Keep laughing BDB and joe, as Obama's "lead" gets smaller and smaller.

It's a CONVENTION BOUNCE. You know, like the one Obama had, that actually gave him a lead outside the margin of error of the polls? You know, the one you didn't react to at all?

Look, you have your little story, and nothing is going to shake it. Walking confirmation bias.

|9.7.08 @ 10:02PM|#

"I doubt it has much to do with your girl-crush Palin."

LOL and dead on. TAO too...

joe
I hope you are right, but if Obama wins I will be genuinely suprised. He has too many liabilities as I have described extensively upthread.

|9.7.08 @ 10:05PM|#

When Obama was the "historical black candidate and alternative to HRC" he scored well. His liabilities were then exploited. His lead has gotten smaller ever since and I predict will never be regained.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:06PM|#

I thought McCain had a good chance until Palin--then he flushed his two best attacks down the shitter by choosing her.

Namely, being the "safe" candidate and being more "real" and not a celebrity.

Palin makes him unsafe, and Palin is the subject of the same idol worship (see: SIV, all of Red State) that Obama is except this time its by creepy old conservative men fantasizing about her, which makes it worse.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:10PM|#

Seriously if you don't believe me, go read the RedState comments thread after her speech. It's a cyber circle-jerk--having to listen to four years of that is enough to turn me off to McCain right there.

|9.7.08 @ 10:10PM|#

"MNG's xenophobia on the immigration threads, however, fits comfortably with the "Obama is too weird for us 'Mericans to swallow" meme."

NM
It would behoove you to consider that a person could oppose recent immigration without being the kind of "xenophobe" you imagine. I imagine that does not fit with my aggresive defense of, say, the Civil Rights Act on this site....

|9.7.08 @ 10:12PM|#

BDB-i agree with you that SIV and TAO and the other GOP shills here have an almost orgasmic irrationally strong reaction to Palin. It's quite hilarious if you ask me.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#

Hilarious but at the same time extremely painful/obnoxious to watch. Especially because, honestly, I don't find her very attractive. At least not on that ridiculous level. Biden's wife is more attractive, for God's sake.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:15PM|#

Those celebrity attacks were effective too. They worked on me more than I realized--I was starting to feel sorry for McCain, I thought maybe it's his turn and he should have it, that he has more substance and depth and that's what's important.

And then he picks Palin, and loses me.

Kolohe|9.7.08 @ 10:28PM|#

I thought McCain had a good chance until Palin--then he flushed his two best attacks down the shitter by choosing her.

Namely, being the "safe" candidate and being more "real" and not a celebrity.

I thought McCain had no shot until the Palin pick because the two lines of attack you mention are weak and contradictory to McCain's own biography: 1) a 'maverick' is by defintion 'unsafe' - just ask Iceman 2) McCain's entire post-navy career is built on the celebrity he earned (deservedly) while in uniform - and later by being a media darling through the 90's and early oughts.

It's still a longshot for McCain; he needs to catch some additional breaks. The Palin pick is a Manning to Tyree pass of this election - we don't know yet how sticky is the helmet.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:31PM|#

I dunno, if you ask me Palin personifies everything obnoxious about Obama and magnifies it x1,000.

|9.7.08 @ 10:34PM|#

I don't think tax cuts should happen at all, and increased taxes are likely to happen: the gov't just seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; to bail them out, that money has to come from the taxpayers. This is independent of who gets elected, and the American people are downright naive if they think anyone's getting a significant tax cut after that and in a time of inflation and massive federal debt. But, since most of the middle and lower-class are struggling a lot more than the upper echelon, it's the upper's time to pay. When time's are good, we proletariat dish out more; times are tough, the relatively wealthier have to pick up the slack, or we all collapse. Democracy, socialist, who knows anymore?

SIV|9.7.08 @ 10:36PM|#

Palin looked good as a possible "libertarian republican" before McCain picked her. The ensuing scrutiny makes her look even better.

For the typical non-libertarian conservative she is right on two important issues, life and guns, has a record of fiscal restraint and is not a member of the elite ruling class.

Other than Ron Paul the only GOP contender who looked borderline acceptable to me on philosophy and issues was Fred Thompson, and he was a lousy candidate. Palin seems much better and although she is on the bottom of the ticket, she might have influence on McCain and be a contender herself in as little as 4 years

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:39PM|#

The President brings is VP into his line of thinking philosophically, not the other way around.

|9.7.08 @ 10:40PM|#

Mumbles McSame is the Manchurian Candidate, Pit Bull Palin is his young babe handler now that money girl is getting on and can't cut the mustard any better than daddy. Poll all you like, this swill is going down the sewer before election day. Dow Jones down 1000 by November. McCain will go on extended vacation after loss and Palin will start a fast food chain selling mooseburgers.

SIV|9.7.08 @ 10:47PM|#

The President brings is VP into his line of thinking philosophically, not the other way around.

SIV|9.7.08 @ 10:51PM|#

The President brings is VP into his line of thinking philosophically, not the other way around.

No
The VP follows the policy of the President.
Her philosophy/beliefs are her own. She won't be publicly airing disagreements with McCain policy though.

Sarah Palin had no problem telling Murkowski( who appointed her to oil/gas board) and his cronies to screw off in Alaska.

BDB|9.7.08 @ 10:52PM|#

Right SIV. That's why Pappy Bush stayed pro-choice and against supply side, and why Al Gore stayed strongly pro-life.

|9.7.08 @ 10:53PM|#

No matter how wise either party's pick was, how many o's there are in doomed, or which tax package is smaller/more of a lie - I will be fucking AMAZED if come election day the spread is larger than 52%/48%. Or if more than 65% of eligible voters actually vote. Good ol' American politics.

|9.7.08 @ 11:08PM|#

New Story Breaking - Track Palin School Bus Vandalism in 2005?

I know, another story about Palin's family but this one may actually lead into current problems with Palin's abuse of power investigation. For those not aware, its an old story from 2005 concerning school bus vandalism in Wasilla, Alaska with a new twist previously unreported.

It was reported today in Anchorage on progressive talk 1080 KUDO - and quoted from a non-disclosed judicial source, that Track Palin was the unidentified minor who was involved with the vandalism at the time. The minor was reported to be 16 years old. Here is the news article I found relating to this back in 2005. The judicial source's reason for disclosing the data was that it would be released 'sooner or later'.

Even more interesting is the fact that the Alaska State Troopers did the investigation and report on the incident. To add fuel to the fire, Trooper Wooten (the trooper Palin has tried to get removed from the Alaska State Troopers) was assigned to that post at that time and may have worked on the case. I'm trying to secure a copy of the police report.


Published on Monday, December 5, 2005 7:47 PM AKST

Four teens arrested Monday for criminal mischief, trespass

December 6, 2005

JOEL DAVIDSON\Frontiersman reporter




MAT-SU - Alaska State Troopers arrested four teenage boys at their Mat-Su homes Monday after they were charged in last week's vandalism of 44 Mat-Su school buses - an incident that forced the Mat-Su Borough School District to close schools for a day on Nov. 29.

Trooper spokesman Greg Wilkinson said the boys were in the custody of their parents over the weekend while troopers continued their investigation. The arrests Monday were pre-arranged so parents could be present when the boys were taken away to Mat-Su Youth Facility in Palmer.

Deryck Harris, 18, and the other three boys - ages 16, 17 and 17 - were each charged with third-degree criminal mischief, first-degree criminal trespass and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief, troopers said. The 16-year-old was also charged with fourth-degree theft and furnishing alcohol to a minor, for allegedly stealing a bottle of vodka from the liquor store at Tesoro 2-Go in Wasilla.

"They stopped at a liquor store where he went in and stole a bottle of vodka and provided it to the others in the group," Wilkinson said. "Three of the four boys consumed alcohol."

Troopers did not release names of the juvenile suspects, but David Coon's mother confirmed her son was one of two Burchell High School students involved in the incident. The other two boys are Wasilla High School students.

Mat-Su Youth Facility Superintendent Bruce Collins said youths in this situation must see a judge within 48 hours of their detention at the facility.

"The clock is ticking," he said. "These guys will probably go to court today or tomorrow."

Depending on the situation, Collins said the youths could face a number of different scenarios when they go before a judge.

"It can go a whole bunch of directions," he said. "If they can't go back home, we don't have a whole lot of foster homes in the Valley. In that case they might stay with us. If they order psychological evaluations, they will stay with us until that can be completed."

The boys are suspected of deflating tires in 44 First Student buses, breaking mirrors and unplugging 110 buses from their engine-block heaters, which caused the buses not to start in subzero weather on Nov. 29.

Contact Joel Davidson at 352-2266 or [e-mail].


Print this story Email this story Post A Comment Digg del.icio.us

Copyright © 2008 Frontiersman

Comments
8 comment(s)

Jay wrote on Sep 6, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Why can't you people take the truth. No way will McCain/Palin win. Oh of course if they steal the election which by now the Repubs are masters at. "



Sue wrote on Sep 6, 2008 1:14 AM:

" 16, male, are you crazy? Why does this come up now that Gov Palin is running w/Sen McCain? More garbage, who is behind this? Obviously the Obama camp. Did you realize he went to the the most expensive, elite Academy in the nation? Punahou is the Harvard of High School, the elite of the nation. I was accepted to Wesley, Harvard & Stanford & disappointed & bored as we learned in our Sophmore and Junior yrs the curriculum taught in college. But boys will be boys & Obama was Barry Obama! "



Foobar wrote on Sep 5, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Pwned.

The entire Palin family is like a well-dressed episode of Jerry Springer. "



MrUniteUs wrote on Sep 5, 2008 5:31 AM:

" Very serious if true. The brake lines were cut on 50 buses!!

Was Sarah Palin's son "Track Palin" arrested for vandalism ... Most recently there is discussion that Track Palin, then 16, was one of the 3 boys arrested for vandalizing 44 Mat-Su school buses - an incident that forced ...
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904193702AAGlSCL - "



aklocal wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:07 PM:

" I remember that story. Timeline makes it loosely plausible. Don't think this will catch fire without more fuel, though. Good luck. "



Destyne Pope wrote on Feb 12, 2008 4:20 AM:

" How do you get out there when you are blind? You must be really brave "



vacation wrote on Jan 30, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
Thank you! "



Nyakeh Sam Suale wrote on Nov 14, 2007 10:59 AM:

" I think i love Wasilla High More than all high schools in the United States. They have the best Soccer team and coaches....oh.. they won the Basketball State Championship at the Sullivan Arena....Thats so cute. I like all the students over there. "

Col. Mustard|9.7.08 @ 11:32PM|#

The boy deflated school bus tires in 2005?

Bwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

That'll kill McCain's 10 point lead among likely voters. You know the kind that don't need a text message to remind them to vote.

|9.8.08 @ 12:17AM|#

To all women who are undecided: Consider carefully before you decide to support McCain and Palin. This VP candidate, if elected, will be only a hearbeat away from the oval office.

I was a Hillary supporter, and am insulted that part of McCain's reasoning to pick Palin would generate votes from women like me. MOST women do not vote gender. They vote ISSUES.

That said, Palin is a radical right winger (in favor of banning books she finds objectionable; fired the town librarian who fought Palin's planned censorship; does not give credence to the overwhelming scientific proof of global warming; wants only creationism and abstinence taught in our schools; is opposed to abortion EVEN in the case of incest or rape; is opposed to any form of gun control of assault weapons; believes in aerial hunting of wolves and bears (an extremely cruel form of hunting); lies about her refusal to take federal earmarked money (Alaska gets more dollars per capita from the federal government than any other state; she hired a lobbyist as mayor to get federal funds for her town; etc. etc. and she was for the Bridge to Nowhere until there was a national outcry, when she began to oppose it).

Finally, she denigrates and makes fun of the excellent work of hardworking American citizens -- grass roots men and women who are involved in bettering the lives of powerless and poor as "community organizers." I'll take a community organizer any day over a smirky, sarcastic politician who has no federal experience other than to travel to D.C. once a year to lobby for federal earmarks. Being the chief executive of a state 47th in population (for 20 months) is woefully inadequate experience. To get anything done in Washington, you have to work with people of all stripes. Success in Washington requires a certain level of dependence on experienced & knowledgeable congressmen and women, like it or not. Her caustic and sarcastic attacks, (powerfully delivered but framed playfully by Matthew Scully, a former Bush speechwriter) on Obama and Biden are a warning that her governing style will be the same: dismissive of the opposition in Congress, rather than collegial. Even George W. Bush was collegial.

Please consider carefully your vote, and don't vote for McCain just because he's put a woman on the ticket. THINK!

|9.8.08 @ 1:49AM|#

Remember:

People on the DO NOT CALL LIST are not, and will not be polled.

That's why polls are riduculously inaccurate.

|9.8.08 @ 3:13AM|#

McCain's Speech
We all knew that McCain would give a decent speech. I think he probably gave the best speech of his career to date. McCain is not an "Obama-esque" orator. Governor Palin is actually a better speaker than her boss. But what John McCain lacks in oratorical skills, he more than makes up in passion and sincerity.

I've disagreed with John S. McCain on several issues, but I respect him. His wife has done more for the people of this world than Obama and his wife ever will. Some of you may get angry with this next statement, but I don't particularly care - It's the truth. Obama might talk a good game, but he is not a leader and he isn't fit to be the President of the United States.

I think the biggest difference between Obama's speech and McCain's speech was the difference between dependence and independence. Obama told us what government was going to do for us and McCain emphasized that we should be out there doing something worthwhile.

My friends, if you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist…

Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an - an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed.

Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier, because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

By contrast, Obama wants to give you everything:

For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.

In other words, Government will do it for you! We will take from the rich and give to the poor. We will give you what you need. Depend on us! Never mind that that concept is the actual discredited one. What the Ownership society really means is that the welfare of individuals is directly related to their ability to control their own lives and wealth, rather than relying on government transfer payments, Government transfer payments is simply taking money from me, the tax payer, to give to you, the tax taker.

Government does not cause prosperity. You cannot tax companies into success.

McCain speaks of the real American way and Obama wants to give you a false way that has absolutely nothing to do with real American values of individualism and hard work.

Obama is an empty suit with no experience. He has no accomplishments. He has no record of any legislation. We don't even know what he really did as a community organizer! He is, however, good friends with William Ayers. An avowed America hater and unrepentant terrorist.

The company you keep...

|9.8.08 @ 3:19AM|#

Why Obama Should Not Be President.:

I realize that liberals do not understand this concept, but regardless of what they think, the facts are that the United States is free and remains that way as long as we keep a strong, technologically advanced military.

This should scare the living hell out of you!!!!

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."----

You mean like what was used to shoot down that satellite? This hearkens back to the days of Reagan and "star wars". I'm sure that there are parts of it that need work or improvement, but to toss out a program because it is, as yet, unproven is just plain wrongheaded.

At one point in time, airplanes were unproven technology and yet in 1909, the military bought their first rudimentary military airplane. Talk about unproven technology!!!! Good thing Obama wasn't President!

"I will not weaponize space"---

Too late, Bucko! It already is. The Chinese are already deploying them. To not do this puts a lot of technology at risk. Your TV (Even cable is transmitted to your town via satellite), the internet, GPS and a host of military technologies depend upon Satellites.

"I will slow development of future combat systems"---

This one should scare the living hell out of you!!!!! The post WWII US Military has relied on technology to give us the edge. During the Cold War, the Soviets had us in numbers. They had more men, missiles, airplanes, and bullets, but we had them in technology. We could get there faster, kill more of them then they could us and do it with precision accuracy. It was our edge, our ace in the hole. And now, this man wants to destroy it!

The Chinese, through espionage and other means, are trying to catch up and take the lead in technology. It would be absolutely irresponsible to allow our technological edge to completely disappear.

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons..."---

The world is nuclear. The genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back in. We must be ready to counter any and every threat.

Obama will destroy the military and their technological edge. In a battle, that could mean the difference of a few lives lost and hundreds or thousands, not to mention his plans call for putting our entire safety as a nation at risk..

|9.8.08 @ 3:20AM|#

Why Obama Should Not Be President II
Last February, I wrote a post titled, "Why Obama Should Not Be President". In that post, I discussed Obama's view of the military and why that would jeopardize this country's security. Yesterday, Obama again told us why he should not be President - this time he aimed his remarks at the very heart of America.

At a fundraiser in Terre Haute, IN that was closed to the press (natch!), someone recorded a video of Obama (oops!) saying:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama, an Illinois senator, said.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he said. (Emphasis added)

This is typical liberal elitism. You people out there in the small towns and rural areas are considered to be nothing but uneducated rubes who marry your siblings, drink your moonshine and attend your KKK rallies. You are too stupid to understand your world and the events that shape it. This drives you into your churches where you burn your sacrifices and crosses. When you go home to your double-wide, you sit out on your porch with your three dogs, four junk cars in the yard and and knee-high weeds for a lawn, drink your Budweiser and shoot at outsiders (especially if they are a different color) with your shotgun or assault rifle.

Trust me, that isn't much of an exaggeration of how liberals think. To many of them, Conservatives and poor white people are not much more than knuckle-dragging, racist rubes. I admit, I'm generalizing a little myself, but I'll bet I'm a bit closer to the mark. Trust me, I've gotten comments from some of these people.

Obama's attitude is clear here and his clear disregard for the the values and beliefs of middle America is blatantly on display.

It's just one more reason why Barak Obama does not deserve to be the President of this country.

|9.8.08 @ 3:21AM|#

Who Would Keep Their Pledge?
232 years ago, the grandest experiment in self governance in political history was set in motion when 56 men signed their names to an eloquent and daring document whose words still echo in the hearts of free people around the world. No other political document on earth, either before or since, has impacted world history so profoundly than our Declaration of Independence. The only document that even comes close was written eleven years later and is our own Constitution.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence did not just write some flowery sounding words. These were not men looking for earmarks and pork. When they signed this Declaration, they did so knowing full well that the consequences could be deadly. The very last sentence of the the Declaration indicates that they knew the weight and significance of their words:

-And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Most people never get that far in their reading of the Declaration. If they know anything about it at all it is probably connected with the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase and even then, most people probably assume that particular phrase is part of the Constitution.

As I was contemplating the upcoming Fourth of July Holiday, that last sentence popped into my head. Long ago, I had a US History teacher take time in class to point out that sentence and its importance to us and the Declaration. It was in eighth grade and our teacher was an Estonian immigrant whose parents came here to escape the Nazis. I wish I could remember her name as she had a profound influence upon me and my love for history.

The point to all of this is to compare McCain and Obama and decide which one would sign such a pledge and if they signed it, would they keep their word.

Rather than beat around the proverbial bush, I'll come straight out and say that McCain would sign it and mean it. Obama might sign it it, but as soon as the political heat started rising, I believe he would disavow it as soon as he could. He has a history.

On March 18, 2008, Senator Obama said this:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him (Jeremiah Wright) than I can my white grandmother."

Six weeks later, on April 29th, Senator Obama disavowed Wright.

Since his disavowal of his former spiritual adviser, Mr. Obama has since disavowed others and changed his position on a number of issues. Michael Crowley , editor of the New Republic, a center-left publication, pointed this out in an op-ed in the Guardian yesterday:

During the Democratic primary season, all those eons ago, Barack Obama deployed no more powerful line against Hillary Clinton than his insistence that 'we can't just tell people what they want to hear. We need to tell them what they need to hear'. More than just a catchy couplet, the phrase was a deadly arrow into the heart of Clintonism.

Few things crippled Hillary's campaign like the belief that she would say or do anything to get elected, from supporting the Iraq War to claiming she'd dodged sniper fire at Tuzla. In Obama, Democrats seemed to have found something refreshing: a brave truth-teller unmoored to pollsters such as Mark Penn, someone who had spoken out against Iraq the war and could at last restore integrity and honesty to Washington politics.

But since Obama dispatched Clinton, he has seemed rather more attuned to what the people want to hear or perhaps he has simply traded the wants of a liberal audience for those of a more moderate one. Either way, he is treading that reliably time-worn path every nominee follows to the political centre. And the question for Democrats is whether to applaud Obama as a cunning politician who knows how to win or fret that he's given undecided voters reason to think his 'politics of hope' are just politics as usual.

McCain, on the other hand has shown that he doesn't march to any drumbeat but his own. In conversation, I' often described McCain as a bit of a loose cannon, but never have I gotten the impression that his vote or his opinion was for sale and that includes polling results. McCain's experience as a combat pilot, POW and subsequent years of service both in and out of the US Navy and US Senate have molded him into someone who has had to face more than just some angry words. In other words, he isn't afraid of much and he isn't afraid to take unpopular stands if he thinks he's right. I sometimes disagree with his stances, but I respect him for not putting up a finger to check the political wind.

No one is perfect and that goes for McCain. However, if the Declaration were to be signed today, it could be argued that both would sign it given a similar set of circumstances, but there is only one that you could trust to keep his word and it isn't Obama.

|9.8.08 @ 3:23AM|#

Obama Is A Hack
Back during the 2004 campaign, we all watched in some kind of OMG, wide-eyed disbelief/fascination/humor as Kerry marched up to the podium at the Democrat Convention, saluted and announced he was reporting for duty. We were told that his three scratches and his four months in country qualified him to be Commander in Chief. Also make note that the normal tour in Vietnam was 12 months. Kerry's three scratches allowed him to hightail it out of there and run he did.

McCain spent 23 years on active duty, retiring with the rank of O-6. That is a Captain in the Navy or a full bird Colonel in the other services. McCain broke both arms and a leg when he shot down on his 23rd Bombing mission. McCain also has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star in his medal collection.

As soon as Kerry had the chance, he ran from Vietnam. McCain was offered early release from his prison camp and turned it down. Kerry went back to be an aide to some Rear Admiral. McCain worked his ass off in physical therapy to become able to fly again.

If you listen to the idiot left, Kerry was more qualified and McCain's service essentially meant nothing.

If you listen to the Obama cultists, All of McCains years of service in both the Navy and the Government means nothing. Obama, whose resume is thinner than a super model on a diet, is somehow more qualified than McCain simply because he's...well... because he's Obama!

There is no requirement in the Constitution to serve in the military. As a matter of fact, other than being a natural born citizen and 35, there isn't any qualification. It is left up to us to decide what is necessary in a Presidential resume (Religion being a notable exception).

Given the resume of both Obama and McCain, Obama is severly lacking. He is proving to be nothing more than another Democrat hack who will say or do anything if he thinks it might get him a vote.

|9.8.08 @ 3:24AM|#

We Lost WWII...Or Ich Bin Ein Idiot
As I was reading through the Obamessiah's speech in Berlin, I saw a line that made me take a real double take. Obama apparently thinks we lost WWII. Combined with his "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor" gaffe of last week, he is showing a stunning lack of knowledge concerning history.

From the transcript:

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain and France took their stock of their losses and pondered how the world might be remade.

Pssst...hey Mr. Messiah, I got a news flash for you...WE WON WWII!!!!

We weren't taking stock of our losses in 1948! To be sure we were navigating in unknown waters with the beginnings of the Cold War (which we also won, by the way) and getting our footing after the war, but after three years, I think we'd already taken an inventory.

This whole citizen of the world crap that he started out with is the kind of thing that makes the Euro-Twits think they should be voting for our President! He might be a citizen in the world, but his passport says United States of America.

His whole speech was nothing but a list of platitudes thinly disguised as a "non-political" speech.

It was an OK speech as far as speeches go, but it wasn't anywhere near Reaganesque.

Luke|9.8.08 @ 3:26AM|#

Obama - Bad Judgment
Obama allowed his kids to be interviewed recently by Access Hollywood. Ordinarily, this would be a minor dust-up because he's said many times that he wants to keep his kids out of the fray and his family life private. That's entirely understandable and even laudable. I think that's probably wise. On the other hand, he is the presumptive Democrat Nominee and he could presumably become our 44th President and a dignified interview of him and his family would be wholly appropriate if it was done by someone from a major news network- - but Access Hollywood?? Access Hollywood is like the National Enquirer on steroids. It's all tabloid, all the time. (Transcript from Michelle Malkin):

LAUER: …some people said wait a minute, the senator is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to protect your private life. On the other hand, here you are sitting with your two daughters and allowing them to answer questions. Did you make the right call on that?

OBAMA: Uh, you know, I think that we, uh, got carried away in the moment. We were having a birthday party and everybody was laughing, and suddenly this thing cropped up. And, uh, I didn't catch it quickly enough. And I was surprised by the attention it received as well.

LAUER: Senator, if you had to do it over again?

OBAMA: Yah, I won't be doing it again and we won't be doing it again.

As Malkin points out, this interview was about as spontaneous as a planned vacation. Set up, make up, sound checks, etc. are not spur of the moment things.

Essentially, by admitting he made a mistake, he is saying he used bad judgment. That's not exactly something you want to hear from someone who might someday have his finger on the proverbial nuke button. "Ooopsie, I just got carried away in the moment!" It's a little disconcerting.

Had he said something to the effect that he was a aware of his past statements, but felt like it was time to briefly introduce his whole family to the public, probably no one would have said much. If asked "why AH?", he could have said he possibly could have chosen another network, but they were there and it went off well. It would hardly have raise an eyebrow after that. No harm, no foul, no big deal. It would have been quickly forgotten and could have even got some political hay out of it.

The problem is that when he was asked about it, he told us he screwed up. He didn't act fast enough.

That brings it from the minor leagues into the big leagues. If he can't keep track of what's going on in his own family, how in hell is he going to keep track of a country?

Bad judgment. One more reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

Luke|9.8.08 @ 3:27AM|#

Power was out at work (they were doing some kind work near our building) so I was out of the loop this morning. Now I'm playing catch-up.

I am so pleased with McCain's choice of Governor Palin. She's a gutsy, take-no-prisoner kind of fighter and reformer that won't rollover for anyone.

She is probably the one Vice Presidential choice that has kept Obama awake at night.

What's funny is that the the Obamunists are knocking her for her "inexperience. Does that mean that we can now ask Obama about what qualifies him, outside of being a liberal African-American, to be President. (Yes I made reference to his race - why not - HE does!)

I fully support the McCain/Palin ticket. I'm excited and I expect to remain so for the duration. Palin is a game changer!

Here is a list of Democrat responses that I've gleaned from reading around:

She has no foreign policy experience!
Well neither does Obama and Biden isn't exactly Secretary of State material having royally pissed off the Iraqis.

She was only the mayor of a town of 9000 people!
Yeah and and now she's the governor! She went in as a reformer and she's run the state well enough to have an 80% approval rating. (I assume the other 20% are the crooks and liars she is putting out of business!)

The GOP is using taking advantage of a young, naive woman for their own benefit.
Anyone who thinks that is true is just an idiot. It's obvious sexism.

How will she take care of her Downs Syndrome son?
The same way she does now, dumba**!

She was picked for purely political reasons.
Yeah and name me a Veep pick who isn't. They are all window dressing to a large degree.

I feel confident that she would make a great President should the need arise. The country would be in good hands. I listened to her speech from my car today and I was impressed. I was shouting!

Go Sarah Barracuda!

Oh, and let me add, that she is a Blue Star mom! He will soon be serving in Iraq! Put that in your damn chicken Hawk pipes and smoke it!

Luke|9.8.08 @ 3:28AM|#

Iranians Hoping for 'Muslim' Obama Victory
Iran's leadership has expressed "great pleasure" at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel's Persian language service.

But Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said he doubts that the American establishment "will allow" Obama to win.

"One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation," Amir told Isracast.com.

The Iranian leadership likes Obama "mainly because he is a Muslim," according to Amir. His first name, Barack, comes from "al-baraq," which is the name of the horse that Muslims believe Muhammad rode on his way to paradise.

His middle name Hussein is also a Muslim name, and he was "born in a Muslim family," said Amir.

In fact, Obama is a Christian. His deceased father was a Muslim, and though Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia, he never pursued the Muslim faith of his early childhood. While some commentators have suggested that this qualifies him as an apostate - a "crime" punishable by death according to Islamic sharia law - Menashe Amir disagreed.

"If he wins the election, Muslims will be very proud of such a conquest, such a win. He didn't convert [to Christianity] after he was 18. It happened much, much before," so the sharia law judgment does not apply.

Luke|9.8.08 @ 4:14AM|#

Look at me, everyone! I'm another dipshit troll.

|9.8.08 @ 8:02AM|#

http://www.eviplist.com/newsletter/images/sarah-palin1.jpg

http://www.eviplist.com/newsletter/images/palinqueen.jpg

|9.8.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Once again ... if you compare McCain/Palin's track record with Obama/Biden's, it's no contest. McCain/Palin are a hundred times more qualified to lead this country. McCain/Palin show scores of actual achievements and solid service to America, while once again, Obama's track record is one of excessive absences from his responsibilities, and all talk with no actual experience, or contributions to America. Like Governor Palin has pointed out ... Obama had the time to write two memoirs, but never wrote one piece of significant legislation ... not even when he was in the state legislature. Regarding earmarks, and the economy ... If Obama gets elected, his irresponsible and clueless ideas for shifting America's wealth would turn the U.S.A. into a third world country, with businesses laying off employees to keep their doors open. Obama's ideas for national security would de-fang America and make us weak, putting us at the mercy of the world's tyrants.

|9.8.08 @ 11:37AM|#

Obama had the time to write two memoirs, but never wrote one piece of significant legislation

Excpet for the 152 bills he authored in the Illinois and United States Senates, you mean.

|9.8.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Obama talks about "his muslim faith"...I'm really neutral between McCain and Obama, I promise. As a objective observer I have to say that was not a good political move.

|9.8.08 @ 2:36PM|#

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Gallup-Daily-McCains-Bounce-Gives-Him-5Point-Lead.aspx

joe?

|9.8.08 @ 2:39PM|#

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

joe?

|9.8.08 @ 2:40PM|#

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

joe?

|9.8.08 @ 2:42PM|#

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

joe?