How do McCain or Obama get to 270? [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : How do McCain or Obama get to 270?

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9

whottt

09-16-2008, 07:06 PM

New York Trends: McCain vs. Obama

Date
McCain
Obama

09/15/2008
42%
55%

08/04/2008
32%
52%

So basically even the poll that is the only one you guys want to pay attention too...shows a 10 point upsurge for McCain.

TheMadHatter

09-16-2008, 07:07 PM

Why isn't John McCain in NY? Why doesn't he have a significant field operation in NY? I'm confused Whottt. Please explain this to me. :lmao

florige

09-16-2008, 08:53 PM

Man Whottt wants NY sooooo bad......:lol

florige

09-16-2008, 08:56 PM

I cannot WAIT till the first debate. I'm wondering if Biden is the least bit nervous....... He is going up against a superstar. It is on a Friday, hell I may take off that day...

whottt

09-16-2008, 09:03 PM

I've never predicted New York will go Red...just that it will be in play by November. On some polls it already is.

TheMadHatter

09-16-2008, 09:05 PM

Define in play

florige

09-16-2008, 09:13 PM

Rasmussen trend for NY...

McCain clearly is doing better there now than he ever has before. I want to check the number of people polled btw.

Keep in mind...NY is the capital of the liberal media, for instance the New York Times had 4 hit pieces on Palin in a single day....like I've been saying the more Palin talks, the less the media will be able to smear her.

New York Trends: McCain vs. Obama

Date

.
McCain
Obama

09/15/2008
42%
55%

08/04/2008
32%
52%

06/30/2008
29%
60%

05/28/2008
33%
52%

04/29/2008
35%
52%

03/11/2008
38%
51%

Man that is dangerous. You see how her stocks plummeted after that one interview.

whottt

09-17-2008, 04:52 AM

Man that is dangerous. You see how her stocks plummeted after that one interview.

That's because they smeared her and edited her comments..not just ABC, but CNN was running a smear job as well. I can't believe people don't see it...it's fucking ridiculous.

whottt

09-17-2008, 05:05 AM

By the way...whottt from September 6th, page 2 of this thread:

I'll predict a 5% swing by the next New York Poll.

Prediction met, smashed actually...on every NY poll so far.

and I've been looking at some polling data...I do think Rasmussen runs about a week behind the regular average on these state polls....probably due to his weights.

VaSpursFan

09-17-2008, 06:57 AM

VASpurfan this is what I wanted to post earlier...and to the point I was making to Dan:

From Wiki:

Manhattan

minority in the borough, only constituting approximately 12% of the electorate. Registered Republicans are more than 20% of the electorate only in the neighborhoods of Upper East Side and the Financial District. The Democrats hold 66.1% of those registered in a party. 21.9% of the voters declined to state their political affiliation.[77]

Local party platforms center on affordable housing, education and economic development. Controversial political issues in Manhattan include development, noise, and the cost of housing.

Manhattan is divided between four congressional districts, all of which are represented by Democrats.

Charles Rangel represents the 15th district in Upper Manhattan, which incorporates Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Washington Heights, Inwood and parts of the Upper West Side.
Jerrold Nadler represents the 8th district, based on the West Side which covers most of the Upper West Side, Hell's Kitchen, Chelsea, Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Tribeca and Battery Park City, as well as some sections of Southwest Brooklyn.
Carolyn Maloney represents the 14th district, the so-called "Silk Stocking" district which was the political base for Teddy Roosevelt and John Lindsay. It covers most of the Upper East Side, Yorkville, Gramercy Park, the East Village, Roosevelt Island and most of the Lower East Side, as well as portions of western Queens.
Nydia Velazquez of the Brooklyn-Queens based 12th district, represents a few heavily Puerto Rican sections of the Lower East Side.
No Republican has won the presidential election in Manhattan since 1924, when Calvin Coolidge won a plurality of the New York County vote over Democrat John W. Davis, 41.20%–39.55%. Warren G. Harding was the most recent Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the Manhattan vote, with 59.22% of the 1920 vote.[78] In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 82.1% of the vote in Manhattan and Republican George W. Bush received 16.7%.[79] The borough is the most important source of funding for presidential campaigns in the United States; in 2004, it was home to six of the top seven zip codes in the nation for political contributions.[80] The top ZIP code, 10021 on the Upper East Side, generated the most money for the United States presidential election for all presidential candidates, including both Kerry and Bush during the 2004 election.[81]

not sure i understand your point...significant fund raising goes on in the upper east side because that where a lot of well to do folks live, it's one of the richest zip codes in the US...but Kerry still won the state 59% to 40% for bush.

mccain may raise cash in NYC but he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the state despite what any poll in September says.

Findog

09-17-2008, 07:43 AM

There were polls in 2004 that showed Bush competitive in Oregon, Hawaii and California. NY is not in play, if we define that as a state that could go to either candidate.

whottt

09-17-2008, 08:09 AM

There were polls in 2004 that showed Bush competitive in Oregon, Hawaii and California. NY is not in play, if we define that as a state that could go to either candidate.

Yeah? And there were polls showing Obama would easily beat Hillary in California and Texas...

Your point?

Findog

09-17-2008, 08:13 AM

Yeah? And there were polls showing Obama would easily beat Hillary in California and Texas...

Your point?

NY turning red is a pipe dream.

whottt

09-17-2008, 09:32 AM

NY turning red is a pipe dream.

Ahh...my bad, I didn't get it the first 457 times you said it, talking wholly out of your ass.

Just think of how relevant that would be if I'd ever actually said NY was going red...

It'd be really relevant the 457 times you've said it, talking wholly out of your ass, then...wouldn't it?

Let me guess...you don't think NJ or Washington are going red either? I know you haven't said that 635 times in this thread, talking wholly out of your ass...I'm just naturally intuitive I suppose. Call it a hunch ROLLFUCKINGEYES

Findog

09-17-2008, 09:37 AM

Ahh...my bad, I didn't get it the first 457 times you said it, talking wholly out of your ass.

Just think of how relevant that would be if I'd ever actually said NY was going red...

It'd be really relevant the 457 times you've said it, talking wholly out of your ass, then...wouldn't it?

Let me guess...you don't think NJ or Washington are going red either? I know you haven't said that 635 times in this thread, talking wholly out of your ass...I'm just naturally intuitive I suppose. Call it a hunch ROLLFUCKINGEYES

And of course you've never repeated yourself in this thread, whottt. It's not like we've heard umpteen times that "we're going to be in for a surprise" on Election Day and that New York "is in play." Nope, no reiteration for whottt. He never says the same thing twice.

florige

09-17-2008, 09:58 AM

Obama pulls ahead......:lol

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_obama_47_mccain_45_zogby911.php

Crookshanks

09-17-2008, 09:59 AM

And of course you've never repeated yourself in this thread, whottt. It's not like we've heard umpteen times that "we're going to be in for a surprise" on Election Day and that New York "is in play." Nope, no reiteration for whottt. He never says the same thing twice.
Ahh - but the difference is that he usually has facts to back up what he's saying. His general point is that, even if NY stays blue, the shift towards McCain in numerous polls, in several states, has got to cause some concern in the Obama camp.

florige

09-17-2008, 10:05 AM

Pretty good week for Obama so far.

Findog

09-17-2008, 10:05 AM

Ahh - but the difference is that he usually has facts to back up what he's saying. His general point is that, even if NY stays blue, the shift towards McCain in numerous polls, in several states, has got to cause some concern in the Obama camp.

Does it make sense that Virginia is trending towards Obama while New York trends towards McCain? No, it doesn't. The current national and state polls have good and bad news for both campaigns.

florige

09-17-2008, 01:39 PM

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

Has him up one point. I would like to see him get it up around 5-6 point lead before the debates.

Findog

09-17-2008, 01:43 PM

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

Has him up one point. I would like to see him get it up around 5-6 point lead before the debates.

I think it is far more likely that we'll see a repeat of 2000 if he can't open up a lead outside of the margin of error. The first debate is a week from Friday, the race will most likely still be tight as of then.

I keep looking at the electoral map and I'm fairly confident Obama can win the popular vote, but it's looking increasingly likely that Florida and Ohio are out of reach. That leaves Virginia, which is polling well for Obama, but I don't trust that Virginia can turn blue, and the mountain states.

florige

09-17-2008, 01:46 PM

I think it is far more likely that we'll see a repeat of 2000 if he can't open up a lead outside of the margin of error. The first debate is a week from Friday, the race will most likely still be tight as of then.

I keep looking at the electoral map and I'm fairly confident Obama can win the popular vote, but it's looking increasingly likely that Florida and Ohio are out of reach. That leaves Virginia, which is polling well for Obama, but I don't trust that Virginia can turn blue, and the mountain states.

I know FL is looking to be turning red, but what are the latest numbers in OH? The last I checked it was still fairly close.

whottt

09-17-2008, 03:23 PM

And of course you've never repeated yourself in this thread, whottt. It's not like we've heard umpteen times that "we're going to be in for a surprise" on Election Day and that New York "is in play." Nope, no reiteration for whottt. He never says the same thing twice.

Usually with the introduction of new information, or correcting people who keep saying I said that state would flip.
Whereas you just say, "it's gong to be blue".

whottt

09-17-2008, 03:24 PM

Yeah all the states are moving away from Obama so I'm wondering where they are polling to get those figures.

Findog

09-17-2008, 03:30 PM

Yeah all the states are moving away from Obama so I'm wondering where they are polling to get those figures.

Virginia is moving towards Obama, it's substantiated by more than one poll, so figure that one out.

florige

09-17-2008, 03:47 PM

WTF is up with these polls guys? They are saying now that Obama is 1 down behind McCain in NC....:wow, and tied with him in FL......:wow.....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/battleground.poll/index.html

florige

09-17-2008, 03:49 PM

McCain is screwed if these numbers hold any truth geez! What a turn of events....

Findog

09-17-2008, 03:53 PM

Obama's easiest path to the Presidency is simply kerry states + iowa + virginia.

florige

09-17-2008, 04:01 PM

First McCain shows significant strides in a true Blue state and now Obama is only 1 point behind in a significant Red state? :lol

Findog

09-17-2008, 04:10 PM

First McCain shows significant strides in a true Blue state and now Obama is only 1 point behind in a significant Red state? :lol

In my opinion, we're going to see something close to the Bush 2004 electoral map. McCain basically had two choices since he knew he was going to lose:

A) He could tap Lieberman as his VP, figuring that the GOP base had nowhere to go, and really try to fight on Obama's change turf as a couple of centrist Mavericks who had bucked their parties to do what is right for America. A national unity ticket like that would've been intriguing, because they could somewhat plausibly claim that a dem-rep ticket is unique and immune to the usual partisanship. The only risk is that the RNC and the rank and file voters wouldn't really come out for him, and he wouldn't have the GOP's ground game on November 4th.

B) Instead, he was told in no uncertain terms by his party that a pro-choice Veep was unacceptable, so he went with a sop to the far right with Palin. So this basically entails that he will try to duplicate the 2004 electoral map, eschewing issues in favor of personalities and another edition of the culture wars, basically Rove's 50% +1 strategy.

The whole thing about how he and Palin are "Mavericks" going to change D.C. and how she's the queen of earmark reform, against all evidence, shows that McCain chose Option B but is trying to convince people he actually chose Option A.

MannyIsGod

09-17-2008, 05:16 PM

This was the set of polls I was waiting for. A decent amount of good news in there for Obama. The ones that stick out to me are ARG CO which shows McCain up 2 (not good news), CNN FL showing Obama +4 which is excellent news although I take it with a grain of salt pending more polls, CNN NC McCain only up 1 which I take with an even LARGER grain of salt, ARG Obama NM Obama +7 which seems too strong but is a good sign for the western states, ARG NV McCain +3 which kinda sucks, CNN OH Obama +2 seems wrong considering McCain has ben up here in like 4 straight polls always around +4 points so I'm not too sure about this one.

Lots of good news in those, but I'd love to see them verify before throwing a party. I think McCain's new ad today was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Obama's 2 minute ad. WTF is Obama thinking going to the 2 minute ad? That shit does not work. The ad he had yesterday was great, and he may have just blown an opportunity to keep pushing down with his foot on McCain's throat.

whottt

09-17-2008, 06:47 PM

Virginia is moving towards Obama, it's substantiated by more than one poll, so figure that one out.

So they're polling Virginia for a National Poll?

Findog

09-17-2008, 06:51 PM

So they're polling Virginia for a National Poll?

I've seen more than one poll in the last 3 days that has Obama either tied or ahead in Virginia. While the poll results may differ as to what percentage of voters are going for McCain or Obama, they are showing the same movement in Obama's direction. I am having a really hard time believing that Virginia is going to go for Obama, but the polls right now are giving him a good chance of winning the state. I think his best bet to 270 is to sweep Colorado, NM and Nevada with their high hispanic populations.

whottt

09-17-2008, 07:04 PM

whottt

09-17-2008, 07:10 PM

Called by whottt earlier in this thread:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/31061

Shock Poll: Jews Now Favor McCain in New York, 54-32
John Podhoretz - 09.17.2008 - 6:17 PM
The Siena poll, one of the two key polls of New York state voters, has come out with its monthly snapshot of the presidential race in the Empire State. And it’s stunning. It is remarkable, though not eye-opening, that John McCain is now only 5 points behind Barack Obama, 46-41 – not shocking because polls have narrowed to similar margins in New Jersey. (It should be noted, however, that according to a Rasmussen poll released yesterday, Obama is leading in New York by 55-42.)

No, the shocking detail has to do with a wild, 35-point swing toward McCain among Jewish voters. Obama led among them by a margin of 50-37 in August. This month, McCain is actually leading Obama by a margin of 54 percent to 32 percent.

Siena polled 626 likely voters this month. Of those, according to Steve Greenberg, the spokesman for the Siena poll, 77 were Jews, or 12 percent of the sample. That is Siena’s best guess of the size of the Jewish vote in New York state in November. With a sample size that small, the margin of error for the Jewish voter sample is plus-or-minus 11 points.

That means the poll could be off by as many as 11 points in either direction — i.e., McCain could be leading by as little as 11 points or by as many as 33.

The only difference between the September poll and the August poll as a matter of methodology is that in September, Siena polled likely voters, whereas in August it only polled registered voters.

The poll could, of course, be an outlier. But if it even begins to approximate the truth, it is huge news. No Republican has scored more than 39 percent of the Jewish vote in modern times, and that was Ronald Reagan in 1980, following a series of missteps by the Carter administration. These sorts of numbers for McCain have implications in two other states particularly — Florida and Pennsylvania.

In Florida, the implications are obvious. Obama’s own Jewish organizers in Florida are telling the campaign they are finding profound resistance to him, particularly in South Florida. The polling overall there seems to be moving inexorably in McCain’s direction, which is necessary for him; it is nearly impossible to see how he can win the election if he loses Florida.

But what about Pennsylvania? That is a state it appears Obama must win. There are, it is estimated, more than 200,000 Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, a state John Kerry won by 140,000 votes. If we assume Pennsylvania’s 200,000 voting Jews voted in the same way as Jews nationwide in 2004 and went 76-24 for Kerry, we can attribute 150,000 Jewish votes to Kerry, his entire margin of victory plus seven percent. Now imagine if that number had been closer to 50-50. Kerry would have received 100,000 Jewish votes rather than 150,000. Bush would have received 100,000 Jewish votes rather than 50,000. Kerry’s margin of victory would then have shrunk to 40,000 votes.

It appears Obama may have a tougher time in Pennsylvania than Kerry did because of his difficulty attracting the ethnic white vote in the western part of the state. If there is a Jewish swing away from him as well, he really could lose there. And if he loses there and loses Ohio, he is sunk. Ohio has approximately 80,000 Jewish voters, so a swing away from Obama to a 50-50 race would cost him 25,000 votes Kerry presumably received in 2004 — and in a state that Bush won by 121,000 votes.

We’ll need more data from two other states with a significant Jewish population to allow for a measurable sample size in a poll – Florida and California – and a polling firm willing to break out the Jewish vote as Siena has, to see whether this is just statistical smoke or whether Obama has a brushfire he needs to put out somehow before it consumes him.

Findog

09-17-2008, 07:21 PM

John Podheretz's analysis does not concern me.

whottt

09-17-2008, 07:24 PM

I know...the only thing concerns you is what comes out of your ass...noted.

I know your opinion Findog...no need to keep restating it.

whottt

09-17-2008, 09:51 PM

Latest New Mexico Poll:

Thursday, September 18
Race Poll Results Spread
New Mexico SurveyUSA Obama 52, McCain 44 Obama +8

:wtf

Numerous recent polls have had them tied for McCain in the lead.

None of these polls are making sense..there's one poll that only has Obama up by 5 in Illinois.

Mr. Peabody

09-17-2008, 09:58 PM

None of these polls are making sense..there's one poll that only has Obama up by 5 in Illinois.

It's still too early for these polls to make sense. We still haven't had any debates yet and I think a lot of the support on both sides is "soft" and may change over the next 50 days. The polls at this point are nothing more than talking points for the 24 news networks to kill ten minutes at a time.

It's like on Morning Joe. Every morning, they have Chuck Todd pull out the interactive electoral map and go through that day's polls and different electoral vote scenarios. Every friggin' morning. Things don't change that much day to day and if they do, it's probably too unreliable to merit discussion.

whottt

09-17-2008, 10:03 PM

I mean some of it makes sense...you know all this economic shit is going to be aimed at Bush and McCain is going to get the fallout by default. That I understand...but it almost seems like every state except for the small diehard red and blue states, are moving towards the middle. And for some of them it makes no sense.

TheMadHatter

09-17-2008, 10:19 PM

McCain's bounce has officially faded. Obama is already +2-4 pts ahead in most national polls and we are only mid-week. By the end of the week I expect him to have a comfortable +3-4 pt lead that he will hold onto going into the debates.

Barring some major gaffe in the debate I fully expect Obama to be the favorite come election day. He just needs to stay on message and hammer the shit out of McCain and the Republicans on the economy.

And whottt, welcome politics. It's called a post convention bounce. And it's over for John McCain.

Crookshanks

09-17-2008, 10:31 PM

I agree with Whott - some of these polls just don't make any sense. Like the NC one - on September 11th, McCain had a 17 point lead; and now they're saying he's only up by 1? I just don't believe it.

I guess we all need to remember that many of these polls are going to be weighted in favor of one party over the other - very few, if any, are truly unbiased.

But after all is said and done - the only number that matters is 270!

MannyIsGod

09-17-2008, 10:33 PM

Mr. Peabody

09-17-2008, 10:41 PM

As we get closer to election day I think we're likely to see more of a polling effect of Obama's advantadge on the ground. I'm not sure how this will manifest itself and how much of an advantadge at the polls it will be in the end, but once reason we're going to see results that are odd is because of that. Some polls will measure and account for this better than others.

I think the only way this will really be reflected is in the number of registered voters. Many of the polls right now use a slightly larger sample of Democrats than Republicans to reflect the larger number of registered Democrats this year. That larger number stems, at least in part, from the campaign's efforts during the Democratic primary.

If Obama really does have the ground game advantage that we hear about, he should out perform his polls in these areas. We'll see.

Link to Entire Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/uselections2008.usa)
Some state-by-state comparisons are useful. In Ohio, Obama has 33 offices, and McCain nine. In Michigan, it's 22-11. Virginia, 28-6; Iowa, 23-6; New Mexico, 18-1; Missouri, 27-7. You get the picture. Florida is the only competitive state where McCain has more offices, 35-25. That 35 is deeply uncharacteristic for McCain, probably explained by the fact that much of the McCain vote in Florida will be elderly and will need to be driven to the polls on election day.

In addition, the Obama campaign is counting on a large voter-registration effort that's been ongoing in key states since 2006. Twenty-eight of the 50 states enroll voters according to party affiliation, and in those states, Democrats have gained 2 million voters in the last two years, while the Republicans have lost 334,000. Numbers for 2008 alone look like this in some important states: Colorado, 66,516 Democrats to 13,352 Republicans; Florida, 209,422 Democrats to 77,196 Republicans; Iowa, 69,301 Democrats to 7,515 Republicans; Pennsylvania, 98,137 Democrats to just 289 Republicans.

MannyIsGod

09-17-2008, 10:45 PM

I think the only way this will really be reflected is in the number of registered voters. Many of the polls right now use a slightly larger sample of Democrats than Republicans to reflect the larger number of registered Democrats this year. That larger number stems, at least in part, from the campaign's efforts during the Democratic primary.

If Obama really does have the ground game advantage that we hear about, he should out perform his polls in these areas. We'll see.

There's absolutely no doubt that he has a huge ground game advantage. I'm not sold that it will translate well at the voting booth, but given the big interest in the democratic primary coupled with Obama spending money to build "on the ground" much more and earlier than McCain there is absolutely no doubt he has a big time advantage there.

EDIT: I see you posted some indicators of that.

MannyIsGod

09-17-2008, 10:47 PM

Also only certain polls are weighted by party ID. And a lot of the weird poll to poll results we're getting are because the pollsters are switching from likely to registered voters and vice versa.

I'm not sure which pollsters are using party ID in a weighted manner but I'm sure some digging around on fivethirtyeight.com will turn up this info.

Mr. Peabody

09-17-2008, 10:49 PM

There's absolutely no doubt that he has a huge ground game advantage. I'm not sold that it will translate well at the voting booth, but given the big interest in the democratic primary coupled with Obama spending money to build "on the ground" much more and earlier than McCain there is absolutely no doubt he has a big time advantage there.

Well, the ground game is what help "W" win over Kerry. Kerry tried to buy a ground game by outsourcing his voter registration and get out the vote efforts. "W" relied on churches and the like, and as a consequence, had a more determined and reliable effort on election day.

Mr. Peabody

09-17-2008, 11:05 PM

Obama's up in Indiana?:wow

Link (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080917/NEWS0502/80917076)
Star/WTHR poll: It's close in Indiana
Poll finds Obama has a fragile edge on McCain, 47% to 44%
By Bill Ruthhart and Tim Evans
Posted: September 17, 2008
Read Comments(9) Recommend E-mailPrintShareA A
Sen. Barack Obama holds a tenuous lead over Sen. John McCain in Indiana, with one in four likely voters saying they could change their mind on who to support for president, according to a new Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.
Obama's three-point lead in the poll, 47 percent to 44 percent, reinforces Indiana's status as a battleground in the race for the White House.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Tuesday by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, also revealed a geographic disparity between the two candidates: Obama, the Democrat, holds a 54 percent to 40 percent advantage in Indianapolis, but McCain, the Republican, leads in all other regions of the state, including Northwest Indiana.

Pollster J. Ann Selzer said the poll, with a 4 percentage point margin of error, reflects a lead by Obama that is tentative and reliant on a solid turnout in the Indianapolis metropolitan area.

Obama's advantage, the poll found, easily could be erased. That's because one in four likely voters are still up for grabs: Six percent are undecided, and almost 20 percent of voters who say they prefer Obama or McCain say they could be persuaded to vote for someone else.

Surprising, but still too early to mean anything.

whottt

09-17-2008, 11:58 PM

Some more polls from RCP:

Race Poll Results Spread
Wisconsin Rasmussen Obama 48, McCain 46 Obama +2
Oregon Rasmussen Obama 51, McCain 47 Obama +4

The Oregon poll is truly bizarre.

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 12:13 AM

Some more polls from RCP:

Race Poll Results Spread
Wisconsin Rasmussen Obama 48, McCain 46 Obama +2
Oregon Rasmussen Obama 51, McCain 47 Obama +4

The Oregon poll is truly bizarre.

Yeah I don't buy Obama up in Indiana and I don't buy McCain at 47 in Oregon. WTF @ no undecideds? Did they just give them all to McCain?

TheMadHatter

09-18-2008, 12:23 AM

The polls are trending away from McCain and towards Obama.

No more post convention bounce. Back to the issues. McCain can't win this battle.

Mr. Peabody

09-18-2008, 12:28 AM

Intrade is shifting as well.

McCain 48.5 (-2.0)
Obama 51.5 (+2.6)

Mr. Peabody

09-18-2008, 12:40 AM

Yeah I don't buy Obama up in Indiana and I don't buy McCain at 47 in Oregon. WTF @ no undecideds? Did they just give them all to McCain?

The polls show Obama within 4 in West Virginia. Yes, this West Virginia -

c-q4MDQ0cDI

That can't be accurate.

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 01:21 AM

The polls show Obama within 4 in West Virginia. Yes, this West Virginia -

c-q4MDQ0cDI

That can't be accurate.

I've actually read a lot about how WV could have been far more in play if Obama had tried as hard there as he did in Georgia.

florige

09-18-2008, 07:27 AM

The polls are trending away from McCain and towards Obama.

No more post convention bounce. Back to the issues. McCain can't win this battle.

I fully expected Obama to regain some control after the convention/Palin thing died down, but these numbers are just shifting way too fast t-wards Obama in some states he was just down alot in.....:wow

florige

09-18-2008, 09:21 AM

:lmao

It's over.

Told you Whottt that shit was too early to call man right after the conventions.
While I'm happy Obama has retaken the lead, I refuse to blow my load again till after the debates. Especially with how wierd these polls have been looking.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/opinion/polls/main4456249.shtml

whottt

09-18-2008, 09:23 AM

It is over....

florige

09-18-2008, 09:24 AM

It is over....

I'm in agreement with you that these poll #'s are looking crazy. I expected it but not this fast.

whottt

09-18-2008, 09:25 AM

My prediction that it is over wasn't based on polls.

florige

09-18-2008, 09:27 AM

My prediction that it is over wasn't based on polls.

Oh. What were you basing it on?

Obama may be leading in the natl polls again, but he has to fix some stuff on that map because he still trails McCain.

whottt

09-18-2008, 09:30 AM

Oh. What were you basing it on?

The same instinct I've used to predict the winner of the popular vote in every election I've been eligible to vote in.

Obama the Democrats are too far to the left to win.

2centsworth

09-18-2008, 09:44 AM

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

updated and has McCain at 274

Bartleby

09-18-2008, 09:45 AM

The same instinct I've used to predict the winner of the popular vote in every election I've been eligible to vote in.

Obama the Democrats are too far to the left to win.

Is this the same instinct you've used to argue that NY is going to be in play?

Barring an October surprise or a monumental gaffe by Obama, this election is his to lose.

101A

09-18-2008, 09:47 AM

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

updated and has McCain at 274

Has ONE state exactly tied; and I live in it.

My vote matters!!

I hope Pat Buchanan isn't on the ballot; I'll get very confused.

Bartleby

09-18-2008, 09:48 AM

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

updated and has McCain at 274

The numbers on several of the key states on that map are prior to Monday's market meltdown, which has been an undeniable game changer so far.

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 09:49 AM

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

updated and has McCain at 274

I was suprised at this when I saw it this morning. I think given a few more days of the current trend you'll see that flip. I do believe McCain was at 280+ on there a couple of days ago though.

EDIT: I just looked, McCain was at 254 yesterday. He's actually moved up. Interesting given the results of yesterdays polls were pretty solid for Obama.

I still see the trend obviously in Obama's favor at this point and if it continues you will see those numbers flip in a couple of days.

florige

09-18-2008, 09:51 AM

The numbers on several of the key states on that map are prior to Monday's market meltdown, which has been an undeniable game changer so far.

right! alot of the battleground states haven't been updated since Sunday.

101A

09-18-2008, 09:54 AM

The debates are gonna be big. (not the actual debates, but the reporting of who "won" them, that is) - I can't expect the idiots who change their minds every few hours to actually watch and understand the debates.

Findog

09-18-2008, 09:56 AM

The polls have been very good for Obama the past few days, and the state polls tend to lag from the national ones. That said, neither candidate has locked this thing up.

florige

09-18-2008, 10:00 AM

The polls have been very good for Obama the past few days, and the state polls tend to lag from the national ones. That said, neither candidate has locked this thing up.

It's still good to see Obama get some breathing room though. Hopefully he stays on the attack. It's when he takes his foot off the gas and goes on the defensive is when he normally starts to lose momentum.

whottt

09-18-2008, 10:07 AM

Is this the same instinct you've used to argue that NY is going to be in play?

Yes...and out of 3 polls, all 3 polls back that statement up.

Barring an October surprise or a monumental gaffe by Obama, this election is his to lose.

Obama cannot stand up to scruitiny...he's completely dirty and it's easy to see for non zombies.

Bartleby

09-18-2008, 10:15 AM

Yes...and out of 3 polls, all 3 polls back that statement up.

It will take a miracle for McCain just to get within single digits on the RCP average, much less make NY truly competitive.

DarkReign

09-18-2008, 10:19 AM

c-q4MDQ0cDI

Man, that was tough to watch.

Here I thought southeast Michigan was the last racially-divided shithole in this country. Who knew?

whottt

09-18-2008, 10:21 AM

It will take a miracle for McCain just to get within single digits on the RCP average, much less make NY truly competitive.

Even the blowout poll(in Obama's favor) shows a 10 point gain for McCain...I only predicted a 5....the other 2 are much closer.

whottt

09-18-2008, 10:40 AM

Man, that was tough to watch.

Here I thought southeast Michigan was the last racially-divided shithole in this country. Who knew?

Maybe they should just make it illegal to not vote for the black guy.

whottt

09-18-2008, 02:01 PM

Todays polls:

Thursday, September 18
Race Poll Results Spread
Virginia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 46 McCain +2
Colorado InAdv/PollPosition Obama 51, McCain 41 Obama +10
Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 51, Obama 43 McCain +8
Florida SurveyUSA McCain 51, Obama 45 McCain +6
National Gallup Tracking McCain 44, Obama 48 Obama +4
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
New Mexico SurveyUSA Obama 52, McCain 44 Obama +8
Georgia SurveyUSA McCain 57, Obama 41 McCain +16
Indiana Indy Star/Selzer McCain 44, Obama 47 Obama +3
Vermont Rasmussen Obama 60, McCain 36 Obama +24
National Quinnipiac McCain 45, Obama 49 Obama +4
Ohio National Journal/FD McCain 42, Obama 41 McCain +1
Florida National Journal/FD McCain 44, Obama 44 Tie
Virginia National Journal/FD McCain 48, Obama 41 McCain +7
Colorado National Journal/FD Obama 45, McCain 44 Obama +1
New Mexico National Journal/FD Obama 49, McCain 42 Obama +7
National Battleground Tracking* McCain 47, Obama 45 McCain +2

Everyday these polls are completely reversed in some of these states.

whottt

09-18-2008, 02:04 PM

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

Latest RCP Electoral Map has McCain up 216-212

9 fucking tossup states :lmao

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 02:06 PM

Todays polls:

Thursday, September 18
Race Poll Results Spread
Virginia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 48, Obama 46 McCain +2
Colorado InAdv/PollPosition Obama 51, McCain 41 Obama +10
Georgia InAdv/PollPosition McCain 51, Obama 43 McCain +8
Florida SurveyUSA McCain 51, Obama 45 McCain +6
National Gallup Tracking McCain 44, Obama 48 Obama +4
National Rasmussen Tracking McCain 48, Obama 48 Tie
New Mexico SurveyUSA Obama 52, McCain 44 Obama +8
Georgia SurveyUSA McCain 57, Obama 41 McCain +16
Indiana Indy Star/Selzer McCain 44, Obama 47 Obama +3
Vermont Rasmussen Obama 60, McCain 36 Obama +24
National Quinnipiac McCain 45, Obama 49 Obama +4
Ohio National Journal/FD McCain 42, Obama 41 McCain +1
Florida National Journal/FD McCain 44, Obama 44 Tie
Virginia National Journal/FD McCain 48, Obama 41 McCain +7
Colorado National Journal/FD Obama 45, McCain 44 Obama +1
New Mexico National Journal/FD Obama 49, McCain 42 Obama +7
National Battleground Tracking* McCain 47, Obama 45 McCain +2
Everyday these polls are completely reversed in some of these states.

Yeah some are just odd. I think you have to take into consideration when they were sampled though as well as the internals of each poll. Its tough to do a generic comparison of different polls without first providing a larger context.

It is interesting that another poll shows Obama with a lead in Indiana. That would be a damn coup.

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 02:07 PM

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

Latest RCP Electoral Map has McCain up 216-212

9 fucking tossup states :lmao

You have to admit it is incredibly exciting, Whottt. I'm addicted to news and blogs right now. I'm popping open my laptop in between every class to get my info fix.

TheMadHatter

09-18-2008, 02:21 PM

101A

09-18-2008, 02:52 PM

Obama is having a good week. I would look at the poll numbers that from next Monday, they should reflect this entire week.

Obama campaigning in CO was a great move. He takes this state and NM and it's game, set, match.

We haven't even had the first debate, and I suspect BOTH campaigns have some surprises in store for us (wouldn't doubt the Clintons have a secret bomb yet to throw: Hillary 2012)

DarkReign

09-18-2008, 03:08 PM

Maybe they should just make it illegal to not vote for the black guy.

Thats not what I said, but you already knew that.

Racism = ignorance. If you are racist, then you are ignorant. There is no gray area.

But as a voter, it is your right to vote in anyway you deem cogent.

Doesnt make it sit any better with me, personally, that these people are the lowest common denominator society has to offer, and a voting bloc a candidate actually has to pander to.

florige

09-18-2008, 03:21 PM

Obama is having a good week. I would look at the poll numbers that from next Monday, they should reflect this entire week.

Obama campaigning in CO was a great move. He takes this state and NM and it's game, set, match.

It's still too early. There is still alot of mudslinging from both sides that will enable people to still change their minds.....:lol

2centsworth

09-18-2008, 03:23 PM

Obama will get a surge from the democrat led market crash, but the truth will come out and Obama will trail by Monday.

MannyIsGod

09-18-2008, 05:00 PM

Well played. Well played, sir.

Anyway, fivethirtyeight.com has updated maps and charts showing Obama back in the lead in their simulations but the detailed poll analysis isn't posted yet.

SpursFanFirst

09-18-2008, 05:04 PM

Yeah some are just odd. I think you have to take into consideration when they were sampled though as well as the internals of each poll. Its tough to do a generic comparison of different polls without first providing a larger context.

It is interesting that another poll shows Obama with a lead in Indiana. That would be a damn coup.

That's what I can't believe. It's just a given this state is Republican.
He has been hitting this state awfully hard though. Obviously, it's working.

Findog

09-18-2008, 05:23 PM

That's what I can't believe. It's just a given this state is Republican.
He has been hitting this state awfully hard though. Obviously, it's working.

Obama's campaign is investing massive amounts of time and energy in Indiana. I have a hard time believing Indiana could turn blue, but my guess is that he wants to force McCain to spend a lot of money and resources defending the state so Obama has an easier chance of flipping another state like Virginia or Colorado.

Findog

09-18-2008, 05:24 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/politics/18poll.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates “the Palin effect” was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest. The contest appeared to be roughly where it was before the two conventions and before the vice-presidential selections: Mr. Obama had the support of 48 percent of registered voters, compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain, a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error, and statistically unchanged from the tally in the last New York Times/CBS News poll, in mid-August.

The poll showed that Mr. McCain had some enduring strengths, including a substantial advantage over Mr. Obama as a potential commander in chief. It found that for the first time, 50 percent of those surveyed in the Times/CBS News poll said they considered that the troop buildup in Iraq, a policy that Mr. McCain championed from the start, had made things better there.

The poll also underlined the extent to which Mr. McCain’s convention, and his selection of Ms. Palin, had excited Republican base voters about his candidacy, which is no small thing in a contest that continues to be so tight: 47 percent of Mr. McCain’s supporters described themselves as enthused about the Republican Party’s presidential ticket, almost twice what it was before the conventions. As often happens at this time of year, partisans are coalescing around their party’s nominees and independents are increasingly the battleground.

But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general. White women were evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women, 44 percent to 37 percent.

By contrast, at this point in the 2004 campaign, President Bush was leading Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic challenger, by 56 percent to 37 percent among white women.

Among other groups, Mr. Obama had a slight edge among independents, and a 16-percentage-point lead among voters ages 18 to 44. Mr. McCain was leading by 17 points among white men and by the same margin among voters 65 and over. Before the convention, voters 65 and older were closely divided. In the latest poll, middle-age voters, 45 to 64, were almost evenly divided between the two.

The latest Times/CBS News nationwide telephone poll was taken Friday through Tuesday with 1,133 adults, including 1,004 registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all respondents and for registered voters.

The poll was taken during a period of extraordinary turmoil on Wall Street. By overwhelming numbers, Americans said the economy was the top issue affecting their vote decision, and they continued to express deep pessimism about the nation’s economic future. They continued to express greater confidence in Mr. Obama’s ability to manage the economy, even as Mr. McCain has aggressively sought to raise doubts about it.

This poll found evidence of concern about Ms. Palin’s qualifications to be president, particularly compared with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s running mate. More than 6 in 10 said they would be concerned if Mr. McCain could not finish his term and Ms. Palin had to take over. In contrast, two-thirds of voters surveyed said Mr. Biden would be qualified to take over for Mr. Obama, a figure that cut across party lines.

And 75 percent said they thought Mr. McCain had picked Ms. Palin more to help him win the election than because he thought that she was well qualified to be president; by contrast, 31 percent said they thought that Mr. Obama had picked Mr. Biden more to help him win the election, while 57 percent said it was because he thought Mr. Biden was well qualified for the job.

This poll was taken right after Ms. Palin sat down for a series of high-profile interviews with Charles Gibson on ABC News.

Over the last two weeks, Mr. McCain has increasingly tried to distance himself from his party and President Bush, running as an outsider against Washington. The poll suggested the urgency of Mr. McCain’s task: The percentage of Americans who disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is conducting his job, 68 percent, was as high as it has been for any sitting president in the history of New York Times polling. And 81 percent said the country was heading in the wrong direction.

The poll found that 46 percent of voters thought Mr. McCain would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, while 22 percent said he would be more conservative than Mr. Bush. (About one-quarter said a McCain presidency would be less conservative than Mr. Bush’s.) At a time when Mr. McCain has tried to appeal to independent voters by separating himself from his party, notably with his convention speech, 57 percent of all voters said they viewed him as a typical Republican, compared with 40 percent who said he was a different kind of Republican.

Although nearly half of voters also described Mr. Obama as a typical Democrat, the party’s brand is not as diminished as the Republicans’; the Democratic Party had a favorability rating of 50 percent in August, compared with 37 percent for the Republicans, a fairly consistent trend in the Times/CBS News Poll since 2006, and part of the general political landscape that many analysts believe favors the Democrats.

In one of the sharpest differences highlighted in the poll, 37 percent said that Mr. McCain would bring real change to Washington, up from 28 percent before the two parties’ conventions. But 65 percent of those polled said that Mr. Obama would bring real change to Washington.

Despite weeks of fierce Republican attacks, Mr. Obama has maintained an edge on several key measures of presidential leadership, including economic stewardship. Sixty percent of voters said they were confident in his ability to make the right decisions on the economy, compared with 53 percent who felt that way about Mr. McCain. Sixty percent also said he understood the needs and problems “of people like yourself,” compared with 48 percent who said that of Mr. McCain.

More than twice as many said an Obama presidency would improve the image of the United States around the world, 55 percent, compared with those who believed a McCain presidency would do so. Mr. Obama also gets high marks for “sharing the values most Americans try to live by,” despite concerted Republican efforts to portray him as elite and out of touch with average voters. Sixty-six percent said Mr. Obama shared their values, compared with 61 percent who said that about Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain, however, was maintaining some core advantages, particularly on preparedness to be president and ability to serve as commander in chief. Forty-eight percent said Mr. Obama was prepared enough to be president, compared with 71 percent who rated Mr. McCain as adequately prepared.

Fifty-two percent said it was “very likely” that Mr. McCain would be an effective commander in chief, twice as many as felt that way about Mr. Obama.

The two men received similar rankings when voters were asked about what had long been perceived as a McCain strength: the ability to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq. Fifty-two percent said they were “very” or “somewhat” confident in Mr. Obama’s ability on this front; 56 percent said they felt that way about Mr. McCain.

In general, Ms. Palin was viewed more favorably (40 percent) than unfavorably (30 percent). She was particularly popular among fellow Republicans, conservatives and white voters who describe themselves as evangelical Christians, which explains her energizing effect on the Republican base. Nearly 70 percent of Mr. McCain’s supporters said they were enthusiastic about the selection of Ms. Palin; 27 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they were enthusiastic about the selection of Mr. Biden.

When asked who they thought would win in November, 45 percent said Mr. Obama and 38 percent said Mr. McCain.

whottt

09-18-2008, 06:54 PM

Thats not what I said, but you already knew that.

Racism = ignorance. If you are racist, then you are ignorant. There is no gray area.

Race is ignorant.

But as a voter, it is your right to vote in anyway you deem cogent.

Doesnt make it sit any better with me, personally, that these people are the lowest common denominator society has to offer, and a voting bloc a candidate actually has to pander to.

It's no different than refusing to vote for someone because of their party affiliation....party affiliation doesn't make you more intelligent, competent or honest.

There's no such thing as discrimination in casting your vote for the President...the discrimination would be not allowing some one on the ballot because of their sex or gender, or now allowing someone to vote.

There's absolutely no difference between not voting for someone because of their party affiliation or not voting for them because of their race...it is the exact same type of discrimination....and I agree it is ignorant.

TheMadHatter

09-18-2008, 09:02 PM

As long as the economy is front and center Obama will continue to pull away. When we see the full effect of this week in the polls I predict Obama will be ahead in nearly all battleground states that matter.

This is clearly not McCain's strong suit, and Palin is of no help in this regard. I wonder if he has buyer's remorse now, Romney would have been a great pick to strengthen the ticket in this regard.

whottt

09-18-2008, 10:10 PM

So like I was saying...the weights are off:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13584.html

New polling suggests that the Republican Party is beginning to regain some of its luster and, perhaps as important, is experiencing a surge in excitement among its political base.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reports that independent voters have an equally favorable opinion of both parties, 50 to 49 percent, a one-point edge for the GOP. That compares to an 18-point Democratic advantage as recently as August, a wide gap that had generally held for more than a year.

And half of registered voters overall now have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, the highest GOP ranking in three years. Slightly more voters, 55 percent, continue to have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

The GOP convention and the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate have also generated considerable enthusiasm among the party rank-and-file. Pew found that three in four Republicans express satisfaction with their presidential choice. In June, only half said the same.

The findings come as the Gallup Poll recently found that the Democratic generic lead among voters, when asked which party they prefer to control Congress, has withered to only 3 points, 48 to 45 percent. Democrats had a double-digit generic congressional advantage on the eve of the midterm elections.

The portion of the public that strongly supports the Republican ticket has grown from 17 percent in August to 25 percent today. Over the same period, Republicans expressing “strong support” for McCain jumped 16 points. Independents expressing “strong support” for McCain rose 9 points. Meanwhile, Democratic “strong support” for Obama rose 7 points, while his backing from independents dropped one point.

Today, Pew finds relative parity in party enthusiasm. Fully 62 percent of Democrats strongly back their candidate compared to 59 percent of Republicans. Democrats had a double digit enthusiasm advantage last month. Other polling has also showed the narrowing of the enthusiasm gap, a measure that can gauge prospective voter turnout.

A recent CBS/New York Times poll shows Obama still maintains a significant enthusiasm advantage. That poll shows that 61 percent of Obama voters are enthusiastic while 47 percent of McCain voters say the same. That marks a 13-point climb for Democrats and a 23-point climb for Republicans in enthusiasm, compared to polling prior to both party conventions.

Obama holds a narrow lead against McCain overall among registered voters in Pew’s polling, 46 to 44 percent, roughly the same margin as last month.

As with other surveys, McCain polls slightly better when the race is gauged among likely voters. Pew finds the presidential contest exactly tied at 46 percent with likely voters, which is considered a more accurate metric.

florige

09-18-2008, 10:50 PM

Whottt, this movie is over dude! Put a fork in it....:lol

sorry I had to get you back for last week.....:lol

florige

09-18-2008, 10:52 PM

whottt

09-18-2008, 11:25 PM

Whottt, this movie is over dude! Put a fork in it....:lol

sorry I had to get you back for last week.....:lol

It is over :)

I haven't been this convinced of something since the 2003 Spurs went 9-1 on the road trip and I knew I was watching a soon to be NBA champion.

TheMadHatter

09-18-2008, 11:31 PM

What Obama needs to do in the debates in convince the older Democrats who are leaning towards McCain that he is a safe pick. If Obama can solidify the Democratic base that should be enough to propel him to victory.

I'm a little worried about PA. Obama cannot afford to lose that state.

florige

09-18-2008, 11:37 PM

florige

09-18-2008, 11:38 PM

It is over :)

I haven't been this convinced of something since the 2003 Spurs went 9-1 on the road trip and I knew I was watching a soon to be NBA champion.

I'm hoping your sucessful streak ends this year....

florige

09-19-2008, 03:07 PM

Obama up 9 in Mich, and up 2 in PA according to this new poll.....
Tied in OH.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/19/1424868.aspx

florige

09-19-2008, 03:12 PM

The McCain/Palin ship is sinking much faster than I expected....:lmao

Findog

09-19-2008, 03:12 PM

That would be great. It's no use in picking up Colorado or New Mexico if we give back Pennsylvania or Michigan.

Findog

09-19-2008, 03:13 PM

The McCain/Palin ship is sinking much faster than I expected....:lmao

We're not Republicans that like to prematurely gloat. The media has a vested interest in keeping this a horse race, so if Obama really starts to consolidate his lead, watch for them to start handjobbing McCain to get him back up in the polls.

florige

09-19-2008, 03:33 PM

We're not Republicans that like to prematurely gloat. The media has a vested interest in keeping this a horse race, so if Obama really starts to consolidate his lead, watch for them to start handjobbing McCain to get him back up in the polls.

:lol Oh yeah I know. Just a little payback from last week. While I was sorta sure that Obama would at least break even this week, I didn't think that he would move ahead this quick and at such margins so close after the convention/Palin pick.

2centsworth

09-19-2008, 03:36 PM

have no idea what you stiffs are looking at, but McCain still has a slight lead even after all the market drama. That spells doom for the wacko libs.

Findog

09-19-2008, 03:38 PM

have no idea what you stiffs are looking at, but McCain still has a slight lead even after all the market drama. That spells doom for the wacko libs.

Conservatives = anti reality. Sorry, but Obama would win the election today. Time will tell if that holds true for November 4th as well.

TheMadHatter

09-19-2008, 03:48 PM

The Hispanic vote will deliver both CO and NM for Obama. NM already looks like it's in Obama's bag, CO probably needs a little push to get there.

I sincerely doubt McCain will be able to nab PA. It's one thing to be tying Obama in the polls, but to actually win the state he has to be above Obama by at least +2 or +3. It's the same for Obama in FL.

Cry Havoc

09-19-2008, 03:59 PM

have no idea what you stiffs are looking at, but McCain still has a slight lead even after all the market drama. That spells doom for the wacko libs.

Wrong.

RCP National Average 47.3 45.4 Obama +1.9
Favorable Ratings +17.3 +16.3 Obama +1.0
Intrade Market Odds 50.2 47.9 -

Source: Realclearpolitics.com

You fail.

McCain has shown that he is completely INCOMPETENT when it comes to the economy. Not acceptable, not sub-par. Incompetent. McCain lacks the ability to discern basic principles and yet he wants to change our entire economy for the better? It shows the naivete of this country that there are people here in this forum attempting to defend him still.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803052.html?referrer=digg

whottt

09-19-2008, 07:50 PM

Todays Polls:

Friday, September 19
Race Poll Results Spread
Iowa SurveyUSA Obama 54, McCain 43 Obama +11
Indiana Rasmussen McCain 49, Obama 47 McCain +2
Maine Rasmussen Obama 50, McCain 46 Obama +4
National Gallup Tracking Obama 49, McCain 44 Obama +5
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 45, McCain 44 Obama +1
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, McCain 48 Tie
Michigan Marist Obama 52, McCain 43 Obama +9
Alabama SurveyUSA McCain 64, Obama 34 McCain +30
Alaska Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 38 McCain +17
Kentucky Research 2000 McCain 55, Obama 37 McCain +18
National Battleground Tracking Obama 47, McCain 47 Tie
Ohio Marist McCain 45, Obama 47 Obama +2
Pennsylvania Marist Obama 49, McCain 44 Obama +5

Ehh...these polls are fucked up. Yesterday there was an Iowa Poll that showed them tied, today there is a Maryland poll that shows Obama only up by 4. Obama gained a point on Gallup and McCain gained a point on Rasmussen. I'm calling bullshit...the polls are all over the place.

It comes down to picking and choosing which polls you want to believe......I say they are all bullshit for now.

Cant_Be_Faded

09-19-2008, 08:06 PM

Luckily Palin's T's are still retaining their luster.

whottt

09-19-2008, 08:23 PM

Luckily Palin's T's are still retaining their luster.

Yeah but not as much as Obama's nutsac...

2centsworth

09-19-2008, 10:21 PM

Wrong.

RCP National Average 47.3 45.4 Obama +1.9
Favorable Ratings +17.3 +16.3 Obama +1.0
Intrade Market Odds 50.2 47.9 -

Source: Realclearpolitics.com

You fail.

McCain has shown that he is completely INCOMPETENT when it comes to the economy. Not acceptable, not sub-par. Incompetent. McCain lacks the ability to discern basic principles and yet he wants to change our entire economy for the better? It shows the naivete of this country that there are people here in this forum attempting to defend him still.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803052.html?referrer=digg

Using favorability numbers lmao. Per electoral-vote mccain has the lead. Considering we have the most unpopular pres. and the econ is close to the great depression part II you guys suck. Leave it to a dem to screw this up.

florige

09-19-2008, 10:49 PM

MannyIsGod

09-19-2008, 11:28 PM

MannyIsGod

09-19-2008, 11:30 PM

Nbadan

09-20-2008, 12:22 AM

Thanks for the report Manny!

Bartleby

09-20-2008, 12:36 AM

whottt

09-20-2008, 12:52 AM

Certain polls are more unreliable than others. The problem is when people try to look at one poll and decide what it alone means. You need to look at them in the proper context.

First, what are other polls in the state saying? If 3 polls have a state tied and one has the state as a 10 point differential what is the likely situation?

What is the pollsters record? For instance, SUSA has a great record. Marist on the other hand, is weak. Obviously I'm going to believe SUSA polls before Marist.

I don't have a problem with discounting individual outlier polls that don't make sense. They're likely statistical anomalies. But the fact is that the vast majority of polls this week are trending strongly for Obama.

That isn't poll noise. And I'm not convinced its all due to the economy issue, either.

I don't see the National Polls reflected in the State Polls, and I don't really see a big swing in State Polls once you look at all of them...

Beyond that...I would like to restate that Obama is having problems in states like Oregon, Washington and New Jersey...this is being confirmed by multiple polls and it's a trend that's staying. Beyond that...the big gains this week were Colorado, New Mexico and I guess Michigan, but it's really only reflected in one poll.

Furthermore...in some polls, the number of people indentifying themselves as Republicans is now greater than the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats(as posted earlier in this thread)...and none of these polls are factoring that in.

I think Palin fatigue has begun to set in, and I believe that was the initial reason you started to see this trend.
Comprared to who, Obama?

There is scant evidence of that outside the polls...

whottt

09-20-2008, 12:59 AM

Oh and I've already been asked if I'm registerd by Obama supporters here in MI and I've been here less than a day. They are everywhere registering people in huge huge huge numbers. Its impossible to avoid them. The ground game here is strong for Obama. Really really strong.

That doesn't mean those people are going to vote. And if those people are being pushy about signing up...there's going to be a backlash once those people step into the voting booth....

Do the Jevhovas witnesses cramming their ideology down your throat make you want to be a Jehova's Witness? Even when you take the pamplet?

Jekka

09-20-2008, 01:02 AM

Jekka

09-20-2008, 01:06 AM

That doesn't mean those people are going to vote. And if those people are being pushy about signing up...there's going to be a backlash once those people step into the voting booth....

Do the Jevhovas witnesses cramming their ideology down your throat make you want to be a Jehova's Witness? Even when you take the pamplet?

If you're going try to make an argument that having an extensive ground operation is going to hurt Obama then don't bother making it to me. Thats just flat out ridiculous.

Sure, a few people maybe turned off in the manner you suggest but the fact is that having a motivated and extensive force registering new voters and trying to get new votes is going to do FAR more good than bad.

This is one reason those Indiana polls are what they are right now. McCain has almost no money in that state while Obama is putting a decent amount in. And we're seeing the polls shift because of this.

Campaign operations at the ground level in these states matter and to say they hurt is foolish.

~Manny

whottt

09-20-2008, 01:25 AM

1. State polls always lag behind the national polls but I don't see how you can say his lead isn't reflected in the state polls. It most definitely is. I'm not sure how you're trying to translate a certain lead in the national polls into showing up a certain way in the state polls but I doubt you can accurately do that.

Something just doesn't feel right...

2. I'm not sure why you're saying that republicans are outnumber dems but that may be the case in certain places, and it may even be the case nationally (I'm not really buying that though) but what is undeniable is that in most if not all the swing states Dems are largely registering new voters at a far better pace than the GOP. Its not even close.

Here's one example of what I mean:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2777222&postcount=591

As for Palin, its undeniable that she's lost a lot of luster. She was the brand new toy a few weeks ago but her favorability ratings have come down drastically since then. She's going to rally the base still, and there's no doubt about that, but she's not giong to get independents much less democrats in any serious manner. She's not going to win this election for McCain.

See that whole rally the base thing is off...she is a moderate politician...something that has been expertely covered up...but she is.

She's already rallied the base..now all she's got to do is prove she's not a far right winger in terms of governance, as she has been wrongly glossed.

The more she talks, the more that is going to be factor.

Right now half the people thing she's going to impose creationism in schools and overturn Roe V Wade. That's a scare tactic...and she's focused on taking that scare tactic out....and by the time the debates are over, she'll have done that.

I've seen her answer the abortion question before in a debate...she does it extremely well...and her record shows nothing but centrist leadership on social issues.

You add in that right now McCain really does look like he's flat out scrambling. He's flaling. The Obama remark on him being paniced was GREAT and it really showed him hitting his stride today. And whats going to change the narrative? McCain is constantly playing catch up and he doesn't have many more events that can change the flow. He's got the debates and thats it.

~Manny

Yeah...whoever's running McCain's campaign isn't doing that hot of a job of it. I'll give you that. Making the wrong attacks, not responding fast enough...but I don't think Obama's been coming off well lately himself.

Obama is inexperienced and at a loss for words sometimes, and it shows...he's not inspiring confidence...and neither is Biden. Palin does that...she does it better than anyone in this election.

And beynd that...the BS that Obama's followers are doing to Palin is pissing people off.

That Ten Democratic Rep's son hacking her email is not a positive for Obama.

whottt

09-20-2008, 02:04 AM

florige

09-20-2008, 10:54 AM

florige

09-20-2008, 11:00 AM

Obama regains the lead......

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Bartleby

09-20-2008, 11:06 AM

Obama regains the lead......

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I guess it's time for Whottt to trot out his "these polls are fucked up" line again.

whottt

09-20-2008, 11:11 AM

Changing religions verses casting a single vote is not a good analogy to use whottt.....:lol

I'd say it's an excellent analogy.

florige

09-20-2008, 11:15 AM

Some of you guys need to be inside the campaign rooms working with these canidates. The analogies and scenario's that both sides come up with as to what is what is pretty impressive to say the least.....

whottt

09-20-2008, 11:19 AM

florige

09-20-2008, 11:28 AM

I'd imagine for a lot of people casting a vote for someone they don't want to vote for would be a bigger issue than changing their religion.

For some people their political affiliation(including being Independent) is more important than their religion.

My analogy was sound.

Not necessarily saying they don't want to vote for whoever, it's just if thats all you mostly see are McCain/Obama pamplets all the time and different ones from that camp telling you different good things regarding the candidate you would be inclined to want to vote for that person I would think. But I see where you are coming from as well. Maybe it's 50/50 I don't know....:king

whottt

09-20-2008, 12:04 PM

Today's polls:

Race Poll Results Spread
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, McCain 47 Obama +1
Michigan Detroit News Obama 43, McCain 42 Obama +1

Mr. Peabody

09-20-2008, 12:07 PM

Gallup -

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080920DailyUpdateGraph1_jkdelad.gif

TheMadHatter

09-20-2008, 12:21 PM

Damn the Gallup poll today (9/20/08) is great news for Obama.

Obama -50
McCain - 44

That's a whopping +6 pt lead going into the debates. This could be over sooner than we thought.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 12:31 PM

You guys need to remember to look at the polls carefully. Do they say registered voters, or likely voter! Likely voters is probably a better indicater to track, and McCains numbers are relativelye better on these polls!

TheMadHatter

09-20-2008, 12:34 PM

There is no way to spin these poll numbers. Obama has done extremely well this week and completed negated McCain's RNC bounce. If he can hold these numbers post debate it's all over barring a MAJOR October surprise.

What Obama needs to do in the debates is seal the deal with those undecideds. He needs to convince America that he will be a safe pick.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 12:38 PM

If Obama wins, then we desreve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.

TheMadHatter

09-20-2008, 12:42 PM

If McCain/Palin wins, then we desreve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.

fixed

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 12:51 PM

If Obama wins, then we deserve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.

If McCain/Palin wins, then we desreve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.fixed
If you say so.

I find it rather childish to change someone's quotes to suit your fantasies. Are you afraid to make the claim yourself, or what?

whottt

09-20-2008, 12:51 PM

MannyIsGod

09-20-2008, 12:59 PM

If Obama wins, then we desreve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.

Don't bring this shit in here. You have a million other threads in this forum to run your one line political bullshit in here. We've managed to keep this thread almost entirely about the subject this far. We don't need your bullshit fucking it up.

Either provide some substance or kindly STFU and make your way to the other threads.

hitmanyr2k

09-20-2008, 01:01 PM

If Obama wins, then we desreve to lose our asses as a nation for being so stupid to vote him in.

You must be blind to our problems already with 8 years of Republicans at the helm :lol We gave those idiots the Presidency, the majority of the House and the Senate and what the fuck did they do with it? How do you have that much power and still find a way to screw it all up? That's the main reason Obama is in the position he's in today. The Republican leadership has been that BAD. So bad that they'll vote for the black guy :lol

If Obama gets the presidency with the majority of the Democrats behind him and still fucks up as much as Bush I'll be talking about him with the same disdain that I hold for Republicans and their moron supporters that try to defend the last 8 years of ineptitude.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:05 PM

Don't bring this shit in here. You have a million other threads in this forum to run your one line political bullshit in here. We've managed to keep this thread almost entirely about the subject this far. We don't need your bullshit fucking it up.

Either provide some substance or kindly STFU and make your way to the other threads.
Your less than nice opinions aside, I agree we should keep threads on topic. However, I am not the only one guilty. I do't see you calling out other. Is it just that you don't like me?

I actually wish these forums were controlled a bit. I believe threads should not drift off toppic, and I think we are allowed too much leaway to make personal attacks. You may notice at times I do stay within a threads topic when others drift, and at times I remain respectful of others. I can do so always if required. It just isn't.

Care to moderate the forum and stick by rules and be unbiased about it? I'm sure such a position is there if you want it.

MannyIsGod

09-20-2008, 01:08 PM

Those polls I've been posting are usually likely voters...but again, I must point out these polls are weighted in favor of the Democrats.

Put it this way...I didn't think Obama was going to win even before Palin was in the race. And this was even when I was considering voting for him.

Now? No way are the Democrats winning...and yes I'm including massive voter fraud in that consideration. Still going to be an election day landslide...voter fraud or not.

I think you've latched on to Palin being the swinging force and you just refuse look at things in any other light. She had a good effect and coupled with the convention bounce you could see that effect in the polls.

But we're back to preconvention numbers now. And you can say that the polls favor democrats but the fact is that a lot of them use different methodologies and not all of them are what "favor" (i don't concede this point but w/e) Democrats. But no matter what methods they use, they are almost all saying the same thing.

Also, as far as the registered/likely voter thing goes, one is not better than the other. It all depends on voter turnout. I don't think anyone here is giong to deny that the higher voter turnout is the better that is for democrats. In the past 2 elections, Republicans had a better ground game and were able to get the vote way better than the Democrats were able to. Thats not going to be the case this time around. The Democrat ground game is really going strong in many of the key states. With that in mind I don't think its all that unlikely we'll see results that are closer to the registered voter polls. We'll see on Nov 4 though.

But in any event, Electoral-vote.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great because they intelligently take all of the polls factors and come up with a methodology that removes the statistical noise and differences combining all the polls and finding what the true situation is. Theres another site that was linked here as well that does a great job of it also I just can't remeber the address off the top of my head. Electoral-vote.com had a great track record in the last election so when I see what they post I think it is able to carry a decent amount of weight.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:10 PM

You must be blind to our problems already with 8 years of Republicans at the helm :lol We gave those idiots the Presidency, the majority of the House and the Senate and what the fuck did they do with it? How do you have that much power and still find a way to screw it all up? That's the main reason Obama is in the position he's in today. The Republican leadership has been that BAD. So bad that they'll vote for the black guy :lol

If Obama gets the presidency with the majority of the Democrats behind him and still fucks up as much as Bush I'll be talking about him with the same disdain that I hold for Republicans and their moron supporters that try to defend the last 8 years of ineptitude.
I understand your point. Believe me, I am very unhappy with the republicans. They deserved to have their asses handed to them in 2006. They failed to honor the 'contract with America' which gave them the power. I wish we had a better president than George Bush. No way in hell I would approve more of either Al Gore or John Kerry. Lets face it. Truely good people just don't seek to be politicians.

can we agree since politicians are so fucked up by nature, that we should do all we can to reduce government?

whottt

09-20-2008, 01:19 PM

I think you've latched on to Palin being the swinging force and you just refuse look at things in any other light. She had a good effect and coupled with the convention bounce you could see that effect in the polls.

But we're back to preconvention numbers now. And you can say that the polls favor democrats but the fact is that a lot of them use different methodologies and not all of them are what "favor" (i don't concede this point but w/e) Democrats. But no matter what methods they use, they are almost all saying the same thing.

Also, as far as the registered/likely voter thing goes, one is not better than the other. It all depends on voter turnout. I don't think anyone here is giong to deny that the higher voter turnout is the better that is for democrats. In the past 2 elections, Republicans had a better ground game and were able to get the vote way better than the Democrats were able to. Thats not going to be the case this time around. The Democrat ground game is really going strong in many of the key states. With that in mind I don't think its all that unlikely we'll see results that are closer to the registered voter polls. We'll see on Nov 4 though.

But in any event, Electoral-vote.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great because they intelligently take all of the polls factors and come up with a methodology that removes the statistical noise and differences combining all the polls and finding what the true situation is. Theres another site that was linked here as well that does a great job of it also I just can't remeber the address off the top of my head. Electoral-vote.com had a great track record in the last election so when I see what they post I think it is able to carry a decent amount of weight.

I think Palin was the greatest VP pick in American history and Biden was one of the worst. I think Palin is going to win this election...I think people are going to vote for her.

Because no matter what anyone says, she truly is an outsider, and she reeks of being one of us...and people are going to want to stick her in Washington to see what happens.

I agree...the VP pick has seldom mattered before...but it does now.

I can think of multiple reasons for this beyond just the real person effect...

#1. She's good looking and instantly wins the all important looks category that usually decides the election. She's going to be the best looking President/Vice President in history. Period.

#2. She puts out positive energy...real postive energy. This is an all powerful election swinger...the more positive candidate always wins. Always. That was what had me leaning towards Obama(well that and some things going on with Iraq)....since Palin entered this race, there has been a decidedly negative tone in Obama's campaign. Plus...Joe Biden is the worst guy in Washington to choose if you are trying to run a positive campaign. And I'd say that negativity has carried over to the entire Democrat party.

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 01:22 PM

I think Palin was the greatest VP pick in American history and Biden was one of the worst.

This is a joke right? No one can be this stupid.

whottt

09-20-2008, 01:23 PM

Cue negative democrat response proving my point in..

5
4
3
2
1

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 01:24 PM

Cue negative democrat response proving my point in..

5
4
3
2
1

Well he's not as stupid as I thought. He can count down from 5.

whottt

09-20-2008, 01:25 PM

LOL something tells me I missed it by seconds. Damn.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:26 PM

I think Palin was the greatest VP pick in American history and Biden was one of the worst. I think Palin is going to win this election...I think people are going to vote for her.

Because no matter what anyone says, she truly is an outsider, and she reeks of being one of us...and people are going to want to stick her in Washington to see what happens.

I agree...the VP pick has seldom mattered before...but it does now.

I can think of multiple reasons for this beyond just the real person effect...

#1. She's good looking and instantly wins the all important looks category that usually decides the election. She's going to be the best looking President/Vice President in history. Period.

#2. She puts out positive energy...real postive energy. This is an all powerful election swinger...the more positive candidate always wins. Always. That was what had me leaning towards Obama(well that and some things going on with Iraq)....since Palin entered this race, there has been a decidedly negative tone in Obama's campaign. Plus...Joe Biden is the worst guy in Washington to choose if you are trying to run a positive campaign. And I'd say that negativity has carried over to the entire Democrat party.
I agree with you. Besides, she actually does have executive experience. I find it laughable the liberals fail to acknowledge this, you want a 'community organizer!'

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:28 PM

This is a joke right? No one can be this stupid.
I agree with his staement. I know you won't mind calling me stupid too, or would that be stupid two?

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 01:31 PM

I agree with his staement. I know you won't mind calling me stupid too, or would that be stupid two?

If you think Sarah Palin was the best VP pick in the history of the US, then yes you are stupid too

MannyIsGod

09-20-2008, 01:31 PM

Whottt, I don't disregard much of what you say but you ignore much of what works against her. Her record is mixed and if you campaign on opposing the bridge to nowhere then it doesn't help you when it comes out that she did support it before. It also looks like extreme pandering given the situation with the Democrats and their indecisive women voters. That can have a backlash. Then you have the ridiculous way the McCain campaign ran Troopergate this week along with the way she's ducked reporters greatly.

She's generating most of the excitement for the ticket right now. And without her McCain probably has no chance. The people saying he would have been better off with a Romney pick are forgetting she brought him into the race to begin with. Romney may have helped now, but he'd still be 8-9 points behind so wtf would the difference be?

Its really important to note that no one is excited about McCain though. No one. People are coming out in droves to see Palin, and then leaving as soon as McCain steps on the stage. And in the end people have never voted for the bottom of the ticket. They vote for the top.

MannyIsGod

09-20-2008, 01:32 PM

I agree with you. Besides, she actually does have executive experience. I find it laughable the liberals fail to acknowledge this, you want a 'community organizer!'

Your entrance into this thread has been utter shit. I find it laughable that you think executive experience is that big of an indicator. Go ahead and look up the presidential history of those with "executive experience".

I'll be here waiting for your detailed findings.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:41 PM

Its really important to note that no one is excited about McCain though. No one. People are coming out in droves to see Palin, and then leaving as soon as McCain steps on the stage. And in the end people have never voted for the bottom of the ticket. They vote for the top.
Regardless of what people who don't like her think, most of us conservatives love her and were not going to vote for McCain other than the lesser of two evils. Myself, I was going to vote Bob Barr, knowing it to be a spoiler vote.

Whott is dead on. McCain does not appeal to the base of people who traditionally get republicans elected. Obama was in my view going to be president for certain, until Palin was picked. This is the first time in history that I know of that a president will win because of his VP pick. I find it rather ignorant for anyone to think she was a poor choice for VP. I think any intelligent person will acknowledge she is a good pick when you separate your personal political likes and dislikes out of the equation.

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 01:43 PM

She was a great political pick, no doubt. But to claim she would be a good VP or President is ludicrous.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2008, 01:46 PM

She was a great political pick, no doubt. But to claim she would be a good VP or President is ludicrous.

Now we are in an area of opinion. We at least agree she was a great political pick. I simply find it laughable that Obama would be a better president than Palin.

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 02:00 PM

I simply find it laughable that Obama would be a better president than Palin.

Obviously that is a matter of opinion. I find it laughable anyone who has no record of any stance on foreign issues can be ready to be vice president or president. We'll see how she does in the debate. I have a feeling that Palin "bump" is gonna be a pock mark on October 3rd.

Das Texan

09-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Let me give this little historical tidbit.

The economy is in the shitter. There have really only been two other times when the economy has been this bad in modern history.

1932
1980

Tell me what happened to the party in office during each of those elections. The only different variable is that the incumbant isnt running this time.

So McCain is also fighting history, unless some major miracle happens in the next month.

whottt

09-20-2008, 03:21 PM

Here's a guy talking about the poll weights and I agree with a lot of what he said.

Just to diffuse any distractions before they get started...yes he's a conservative. Nontheless...he makes a valid point about the way polls swing. And I don't agree with most of the points he is making BTW...but the ones on the poll weights I do agree with.

People aren't just changing their mind on who they are going to vote for based on every bit of news as the polls seem to indicate. It's the weights that are responsible for those swings.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/19/how-liberal-trolls-are-working-to-get-mccain-elected-president.php

Let's start with the latest poll numbers. Yep, Obama back on top, is the headline for many of them, though it's a bit tight. I guess we should worry on the Right? Hmmmm, well maybe not so much, just as those on the Left did not have that much to worry about when McCain got the 'Palin Bounce' earlier this month. I said when the first bumps came out that I did not think Palin's effect would really be that immediate, and I have always said that the reader should go well past the headline to find out what a poll says. So, taking my own advice, let's see what Gallup has to say.

The Gallup Organization is as clean and straight-arrow a polling group as I have ever found. Their methodology is consistent and transparent, their questions are the same and they have a longer history than anyone else in the business. But even Gallup has a few odd quirks, and when you see them it might change how you look at their poll releases. For this article, I am looking at the Gallup 'Daily Tracking Poll' for the Presidential election. For the five most recent weekly reports, here's where Gallup says the candidates stood:

Aug 21: Obama 45, McCain 44
Aug 28: Obama 48, McCain 41
Sep 04: Obama 49, McCain 42
Sep 11: McCain 48, Obama 44
Sep 18: Obama 48, McCain 44

From that, it appears that a tight race opened up first for Obama, then McCain, then Obama again, with each candidate sitting anywhere from 41 to 49 percent support (not counting margin of error) during that time. Fair enough, but let's look at their support by party identification, first by Obama:

- continued -

Liberal Democrat support for Obama - 88% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 93% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Moderate Democrat support for Obama - 78% Aug 21 and 28, 81% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Conservative Democrat support for Obama - 68% Aug 21, 63% Aug 28, 77% Sep 4, 70% Sep 11, 66% Sep 18

Hmmm. Obama's support goes up and down, but the Liberal and Moderate Democrat support for Obama has been steady all of September. Odd, isn't it? And support for Obama among Conservative Democrats went down four points in the last week, even though his overall support is supposed to have gone up four points. How to figure that?

Perhaps it's in the Independents. After all, if Obama started winning them over, he'd not only be making gains overall but gaining support where he wants it the most.

Independent support for Obama - 24% Aug 21, 29% Aug 28, 23% Sep 4, 29% Sep 11, and 27% Sep 18

Hmmm, again. Obama gained support among Independents in the last month, but he actually lost two points among Independents in the last week. So that 4 point gain overall is still a mystery.

Nothing to do, then, but look at the Republicans. It would really be something if he's improving support from GOP voters:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for Obama - 16% Aug 21, 13% Aug 28, 14% Sep 4, 16% Sep 11, 10% Sep 18

Ouch. Obama lost six points among Liberal and Moderate Republicans in the past week.

Conservative Republican support for Obama - 6% Aug 21, 5% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4, 3% Sep 11 and 18

No change there in the past week.

Taken altogether, there is no group of political identification where Obama's support has increased in the past week. Mathematically, therefore, there is only one way in which Gallup could show an increase in Obama's overall support, when none of the party identification groups showed improvement for him. I will come back to that in a moment, but the reader should think about it, because it's very important, that only possible way this could happen.

Before I explain that possibility, I want to look at John McCain's support by specific party identification groups. The man, according to Gallup, lost four points of overall support in the past week,

Conservative Republican support for McCain - 89% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 94% Sep 4 and 11, 95% Sept 18

Interesting. McCain's support among Conservative Republicans went up a point in the last week. Well, let's move on:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for McCain - 75% Aug 21, 77% Aug 28, 78% Sep 4 and 11, 85% Sep 18

Wow, McCain's support from Liberal and Moderate Republicans climbed by seven points in the past week, and yet we are told his overall support fell by four points? That is very odd, wouldn't you say? It must have been the Independents, perhaps?

Independent support for McCain - 34% Aug 21, 31% Aug 28, 29% Sep 4, 28% Sep 11, and 32% Sep 18

Stranger and stranger, McCain's support among Independents went up by four points in the past week, just as his support from Republicans increased, yet we are told his overall support went down by four. Very hard to explain that using the math most of us learned in school, isn't it? Well, there's just one place left to look. Maybe somehow McCain used to have significant support among Democrats, but lost it? Let's find out:

Conservative Democrat support for McCain - 23% Aug 21, 26% Aug 28, 15% Sep 4, 21% Sep 11, 24% Sep 18

Hmpf. Once again, a group where support for McCain went up, but the overall says he went down.

Moderate Democrat support for McCain - 14% Aug 21, 13% August 28, 11% Sep 4, 12% Sep 11 and 18.

Steady there, so that one does not explain it.

Liberal Democrat support for McCain - 6% Aug 21, 6% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4 and 11, 5% Sep 18.

It's only a point, but again we see McCain's numbers in this group went up.

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response. Bear in mind that this assumes that people change the foundation of their political opinion like a showgirl changes costumes, which has no scientific basis or historical support whatsoever. As I said earlier, the Gallup Organization is very much a professional polling agency, who tries their level best to gauge the national mood. That, after all, is why I chose to use their poll for my examination. I could do the same thing with any other of the major published polls, and I can tell you straight-up that I would find the same practice going on everywhere. But just because something is popular, does not validate it as a scientific method. Rather than report the rising and falling levels of support for Obama and McCain with constant party identification weighting, the Gallup and other polls are shifting the party weights over time, which pretty explains how the 'bounce' happens for each convention. When the Democrats held their convention, the polls increased the weight of Democrats and lowered the Republican response, and when the Republicans had their convention, the polls gave the Republicans more weight. That's why Palin made such an immediate difference in the polls; the Liberals were not all that impressed with her, but the Republicans were happy and with a bigger share of the weight their response was magnified. I can't prove it, since the Gallup people do not invite me into their strategy meetings, but I think somewhere they are weighting the party ID by the mood as they see it. The problem there, is that such weighting is still very subjective, and what's more it fails to consider that someone may consider themselves a member of one party with respect to the House and Senate races, but something else entirely when it comes to voting for the President. The state of Oklahoma, for example, is a very Democratic place, but it's pretty solid for McCain, just as it was for Bush. So weighting a presidential poll for party identification on the basis of how they think someone will vote for Congress, is going to miss the mark.

Anyway, going back to my earlier piece on party weighting, if we go back and look at the historical track record for the last ten years in terms of self-identified party affiliation from actual exit polls, we see a clear standard of weights; 38.4% Democrat, 35.8% Republican, 26.0% Independent. If we then work them out to fill the liberal/moderate/conservative slots used by Gallup, the following weights have historical validity and may be used as a constant for poll responses:

Liberal Democrat 9%
Moderate Democrat 16%
Conservative Democrat 13%
Independent 26%
Liberal/Moderate Republican 23%
Conservative Republican 13%

If we apply those weights to the poll response, here is what happens to the Gallup polling responses:

August 21: Obama 39.94%, McCain 43.43%, Undecided 16.63%
August 28: Obama 40.04%, McCain 43.60%, Undecided 16.36%
September 4: Obama 41.06%, McCain 41.77%, Undecided 17.17%
September 11: Obama 42.04%, McCain 42.45%, Undecided 15.51%
September 18: Obama 39.62%, McCain 45.71%, Undecided 14.67%

Movement still happens in both sides' support, but it is more gradual and is consistent with events in both parties. Frankly, it is only reasonable to expect that Democrats largely support Obama while Republicans largely support McCain, and even now there is a significant amount of indecision; between one of six and one of seven voters are not sure who they want. Most of that doubt is with independents, whose support may make all the difference in the key states. Further, the stated levels of support are within the statistical margin of error. It is also interesting to note that both Obama and McCain, in general, are gaining support incrementally, with gains gradually reducing the undecided portion (at the present pace, however, the undecided portion of the vote would still exceed ten percent of the total vote). The latest support level for Obama, statistically, appears to be an outlier, so his next poll may be expected to reflect stronger support. If Obama is in fact losing support, some specific reason would have to be found - it is not reasonable to expect support to diminish without a clear cause.

The sum effect of all this, is that both Barack Obama and John McCain are gaining support, shoring up their party support and looking for persuadable independents. But McCain is gaining support faster than is Obama, and one might wonder why.

Sure, Sarah Palin was a great choice, but as the Democrats have said, she is after all only the Vice-presidential nominee, a position which ordinarily does little to decide elections. It is reasonable to think that she helped with Republican support, but it would not explain much of a jump in independent support on its own, but there the trolls have helped out.

You see, a political campaign is a matter of building support. A candidate goes on all kinds of trips, pays for all kinds of advertisements, attends conferences and debates and makes appearances all over the place, in hopes of gaining a few voters along the way. When I wrote yesterday that at first I liked Obama and disliked McCain, I was being honest, and trying to explain that they each made their case over time, one gradually losing my interest and the other gaining my support. OK, so it's no news flash that a life-long Republican comes around to cheering for the GOP candidate, but it does bear mention that there have been a lot of folks waiting all year for a candidate to convince them that he deserves their support. There really is not that much that Obama or McCain have said, which changes either of their initial platforms very much, so it would make sense to see each platform grow gradually, and about to the same degree, though with more people identifying themselves as Democrats, Obama frankly should be doing better than he is seeing in hard numbers. And that brings us to what, precisely, would be dragging him back. And that is where the trolls come in.

People plain do not like trolls. Some of us work for trolls, like the caveman who steals your work for his own credit, or the sadist who likes abusing his staff as far as he can get away with it. Some of us see them in traffic, the guys who cut you off in traffic while signaling a gesture that most parents would not want to have to explain to their kids. And of course, there are the political trolls. And like all trolls, people react to them adversely, but what sets them apart is that they also tend to damage their patron at times. And so it is, that Barack Obama's pet trolls have been chewing away at support he needs in the election, weighing him down and making his message look, well, like he's lying through his teeth. It's one thing for The Obama campaign to examine Governor Palin's record as an executive, but out of line to attack her family as their trolls have done so gleefully. And since Obama has not made much of an effort to rein them in, the implicit approval of their attacks has attached him to the stench of their conduct. So too, the smear attempts by trolls to deny John McCain's heroic service in Vietnam has come back to make people wonder about why Barack Obama has not tried much at all to make clear that he respects John McCain's service. Barack Obama has been a little too cute the past month, with monsters who - if not under his direction, they have certainly not been condemned by his campaign - have tried to damaged the public perception of John McCain and Sarah Palin, but have instead provided each a stage to defend their records (which they have done well) and to make regular folks question why a man like Obama, Mister 'Above the Rancor', would let his people act like thugs. While Obama has tried to distance himself from the dirty tricks, they are very similar to tactics he used to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary season, further staining the image he tried to paint for himself.

It is true that Barack Obama can win this election. But he has a big problem with the trolls he set out to trip up his opponent. They are working, instead and with great energy, at tearing apart the underpinnings of Obama's own character and judgment, and at the moment, trolls like Brian are creating an increasing momentum - for the McCain campaign.

Shastafarian

09-20-2008, 03:22 PM

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

What do you think polls are based on?

whottt

09-20-2008, 03:24 PM

And before anyone chalks this up to simple bias...I am one of the people who has changed their mind. Or at least made up his mind in recent weeks. It's not something you do more than once IMO. My mind won't be changing again barring McCain and Palin being behind September 11th.

How many others in this thread have changed their mind about who they are voting for? How many people do you know that have changed their minds?

hitmanyr2k

09-20-2008, 03:44 PM

What's with the dumb excuses? All this over-analyzing of polls is hilarious. Obama had a good week and just leave it at that. Morons (I won't name any names) that thought McCain had this sewn up because of Palin's "Elvis Presley" status :lol were obviously wrong.

whottt

09-20-2008, 03:51 PM

I'm sorry but it's moronic to think people change their minds on every bit of news. It is the weights that are responsible...not people changing their minds every day.

whottt

09-20-2008, 03:57 PM

Let me give this little historical tidbit.

The economy is in the shitter. There have really only been two other times when the economy has been this bad in modern history.

1932
1980

Are you seriously attempting to claim the economy is as bad now as it was in 1932? That's a ridiculous statement and is pure alarmism.

Tell me what happened to the party in office during each of those elections. The only different variable is that the incumbant isnt running this time.

Obama would have been dealt a horrible defeat had he been on the winning side of the ticket in either of those elections...and not that much has changed. And I'm not talking entirely about skin color either.

We just elected W in 2004.

So McCain is also fighting history, unless some major miracle happens in the next month.

The Democratic Congress is even less popular than W is...

whottt

09-20-2008, 04:04 PM

And these weights are important and always have been...I can't find the page right now but I believe that no Democrat with under a 15pt lead in polling going into the election week has ever won the Presidency. Something like that. And Obama polled high in the primaries, he lost states in which he had a double digit lead in polling.

MannyIsGod

09-20-2008, 04:45 PM

whottt

09-20-2008, 05:29 PM

Whottt, I'm sorry but the guy you quoted loses so much credibility for a few different reasons.

1, he's using one polling source for this information when there are several available. Sure Gallup is great, but to act as though they are the only transparent polling outfit is false. I'd probably not even mark them as the best. SUSA is pretty damn good and is better, IMO.

Well the main reason he didn't use Survey USA is that they don't do many National Polls...at least that's my guess. This is definitely an examination of the National Polls...and his point is that Gallup's overall results don't match up with their internals. He's right...they don't.

And technically...if you are going by 2004, Rasmussen was the best state pollster. They were way off sometimes...but they weren't off on who was going to win in each state...they were perfect on that.

What this tells me for example...is when I see multiple polls showing Obama with a 2-5 point lead in states like New Jersey, Minn, Washington or even NY, and then Rasmussen shows Obama up by 15 or something...I tend to think yes Obama is in the lead in those states, no he's not in the lead by as much as Rasmussen claims. Just for example.

But go ahead and go by Survey USA...if you do, Obama's in some serious trouble.

Suvey USA may be showing you what you want to see in Iowa and New Mexico...maybe VA, and they are showing Obama to be in some serious shit in many other areas, including Washington and Minnesota...and they've shown Obama to be in serious shit in Minnesota pretty much consistently.

Anyway, why take a look at one groups polls and focus only on those results instead of looking at them all?

I think he was mainly examining the National Polls...the State Polls aren't reflective individually of good news for Obama...that's the point I've been making for 2 or 3 pages now. Yes he's showing headway in states he needs to flip...and yes he's losing ground everywhere in states he was expected to win.

2. He's using internals and trying to use them to make a point. Internals are ok, but when you have a poll that has a margin of error of maybe +/- 3%, those internals have a much great MOE because they have even smaller sample sizes and allow for incredible inconsistencies. I kept saying this when the media was pointing at the supposed McCain gain of 20% with white women. The MOE may be 20% in itself for those internals, so why they hell were they throwing that around as fact?

Its really sad to see someone try to make points with internals from ONE pollster. Its just not going to be very accurate.

Well I think the point he was making was that if the standard can be that off...so can all the others.

Personally, I look at Rasmussen to see who's actually winning a state and then I try to fine tune the margin using other polls. But I know in my gut Rasmussen is off on the margins in some of these states...as I've said, watching them they tend to be the slowest to react...When they say he's a conservative pollster, they mean it literally.

Das Texan

09-21-2008, 02:38 AM

Are you seriously attempting to claim the economy is as bad now as it was in 1932? That's a ridiculous statement and is pure alarmism.

I never said it was as bad.

I'm simply stating that the economy today is horrible. The only other two times in modern history it has really been this bad is 1932 and 1980.

I did like how you ignored completely my mention of 1980. That was brilliant.

And if not for the measures put in place after 1929, what happened then would have already happened this year or would be happening in the next 6-8 weeks or less.

Guaranteed. The same shit that essentially lead to that has lead to this.

Widespread speculation especially in real estate.

Sometimes I wish people would actually study more history, it does repeat itself often.

whottt

09-21-2008, 03:04 AM

I never said it was as bad.

I'm simply stating that the economy today is horrible. The only other two times in modern history it has really been this bad is 1932 and 1980.

I did like how you ignored completely my mention of 1980. That was brilliant.

Yeah um...unemployment was 33% in 1932, it's a ridiculous comparison to 1980, or now.

If unemployment was 33% right now, Usama Bin Laden could get elected against the incumbent.

It's 6.1% right now, a figure 95% of the countries in the world would love to have.

1980 is a fair comparison to right now(although 1980 was definitely worse)...1932 isn't a fair comparison to anything.

And FDR ran on a platform of repealing prohibition as well...that was a huge reason he got elected.

And if not for the measures put in place after 1929, what happened then would have already happened this year or would be happening in the next 6-8 weeks or less.

Guaranteed. The same shit that essentially lead to that has lead to this.

Not the same at all...

Widespread speculation especially in real estate.

Sometimes I wish people would actually study more history, it does repeat itself often.

History also said there was no way W should have been re-elected, however history wasn't aware that the Democrats were going to put John Kerry up against him. I'd just like to point out that the Democrats in 1932 and the Republicans in 1980, were both viewed as much more competent than their opposition...that isn't the case with the Democrats in this election, check the approval ratings of congress.

It's not the same and you are frankly blind to the lack of appeal of the Democratic Party right now. Yes the Republicans are unpopular...but so are the Democrats.

PS: In both of the examples you listed the Presidential victor came from the out of power party in congress. Guess who that is this time around? Americans aren't stupid...that's why the parties in power change.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2008, 03:20 AM

Whottt we came a lot closer to 1932 this week than many people realize. We came within 24 hours of the collapse of our financial markets and I'm not convinced we staved it off at all.

Sure, the government says its going to bail these fuckers out but where is it going to get them money? Tbills of course, but what happens when governments stop buying those tbills because they saw how fragile our shit is this week? It then devalues the dollar of course.

We're in some deep shit right now, and when it does finally spiral out of control its going to happen so much faster than anyone realizes. Its going to be 1932 much faster than people can imagine when the shit does hit the fan.

whottt

09-21-2008, 03:43 AM

Whottt we came a lot closer to 1932 this week than many people realize. We came within 24 hours of the collapse of our financial markets and I'm not convinced we staved it off at all.

Eh...it's the housing market. People have been talking about the housing bubble for years...it's really not that much of a surprise.

Sure, the government says its going to bail these fuckers out but where is it going to get them money? Tbills of course, but what happens when governments stop buying those tbills because they saw how fragile our shit is this week? It then devalues the dollar of course.

Sometimes you don't have a choice. Sometimes the economy is going to take a downturn.

We're in some deep shit right now, and when it does finally spiral out of control its going to happen so much faster than anyone realizes. Its going to be 1932 much faster than people can imagine when the shit does hit the fan.

Well I hate to break it to you guys, but FDR didn't fix the economy...he made it worse....it finally got fixed 9 years later when we entered into WWII.

whottt

09-21-2008, 03:47 AM

Here's a link to some unemployment figures that shows W to be one of the greatest Presidents in history in terms of creating jobs...he's actually done a better job of it than Clinton, without the benefit of a technological revolution.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Sometimes, it is the best of all possible worlds.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2008, 03:53 AM

Its the housing market eh?

You do realize that this past week banks completely stopped lending money in an economy where if businesses don't get loans they have no capital on hand, right? If they have no capital on hand they have to sell off assets in order to get that capital but if no one has capital how are they going to buy? If no one is able to get capital how are they going to pay their employees?

This shit is sooooooooooooooo fucking deep right now.

BUT this is an entirely different thread.

I'll say this, I've been glued to political news for months now. I took some time over the past few days to read about what this whole mess actually is in order to get a better understanding of it. Well, for the first time in months I think political news may not matter.

I'm worried. Really really really worried. This is so much deeper than 99% of this country realizes right now.

SnakeBoy

09-21-2008, 03:56 AM

I think it very well could become 1932 again, except without all the apples.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/13/95713-004-07EFBC48.jpg

All depends on how deep the rabbit hole goes. Nobody knows.

Findog

09-21-2008, 11:39 AM

History also said there was no way W should have been re-elected,

Are you just trolling, whot? America almost never throws out wartime incumbents. That Bush barely beat another yacht-riding, wine-sipping Dukakis despite being a wartime incumbent says a lot.

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 02:23 PM

I'm still wondering why anyone bothers responding to whottt.

The Republican party should be proud though. They really can brain-wash people.

whottt

09-21-2008, 05:03 PM

Are you just trolling, whot? America almost never throws out wartime incumbents.

Yeah idiot? And prior to 2004 American had never re-elected a President that lost the popular vote....much less given him a majority.

That Bush barely beat another yacht-riding, wine-sipping Dukakis despite being a wartime incumbent says a lot.

No shit...says the Democrats sucked at a historic level, they gave arguably the most unpopular President in history more votes than any President in history.

Well done...

PS: Your VP from 2004 is a bigger scumbag than Cheney and your VP from 2000 is now supporting the Republicans.

Who's stupid?

Talk about having your shit together.

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 05:16 PM

I refuse to take seriously anyone who believes Sarah Palin is the greatest VP pick in history. You have zero credibility whottt.

"In what respect Charlie?"

whottt

09-21-2008, 05:20 PM

Its the housing market eh?

Well yeah and gas prices of course.

You do realize that this past week banks completely stopped lending money in an economy where if businesses don't get loans they have no capital on hand, right?

You do realize why they did that don't you?

If they have no capital on hand they have to sell off assets in order to get that capital but if no one has capital how are they going to buy? If no one is able to get capital how are they going to pay their employees?

This shit is sooooooooooooooo fucking deep right now.

BUT this is an entirely different thread.

I'll say this, I've been glued to political news for months now. I took some time over the past few days to read about what this whole mess actually is in order to get a better understanding of it. Well, for the first time in months I think political news may not matter.

I'm worried. Really really really worried. This is so much deeper than 99% of this country realizes right now.

When companies fall others will rise up to fill the void...honestly, this isn't going to be that bad for the consumer who has his shit together.

Banks aren't going to stop lending money...

whottt

09-21-2008, 05:25 PM

Todays polls:

PresidentSenateHouseGovernorJob Approval/Misc.Sunday, September 21
Race Poll Results Spread
National Gallup Tracking Obama 49, McCain 45 Obama +4
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, McCain 47 Obama +1
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 45, McCain 44 Obama +1
Florida Sun-Sentinel/R2000 McCain 46, Obama 45 McCain +1
Iowa Quad-City Times/R2000 Obama 53, McCain 39 Obama +14
Florida Miami Herald/SP Times McCain 47, Obama 45 McCain +2
Ohio Ohio Newspaper Poll McCain 48, Obama 42 McCain +6
Alabama Press Register McCain 52, Obama 25 McCain +27

whottt

09-21-2008, 05:33 PM

BTW, I am officially taking Research 2000 off my list of valid polls. I can't believe those guys are allowed to have their polls posted with other legitimate pollsters.

Jekka

09-21-2008, 05:43 PM

Well yeah and gas prices of course.

You do realize why they did that don't you?

When companies fall others will rise up to fill the void...honestly, this isn't going to be that bad for the consumer who has his shit together.

Banks aren't going to stop lending money...

They already have!!!!! Why do you think this shit is happening? They are unwilling to lend anyone money right now and when the interest rate is already fucking ZERO there really isn't shit the fed can do which is why we're in this mess of needing them to buy these assets. Everyone's investing within the housing market and spreading these bad loans with other investments have absolutely crushed the credit rating of everyone around. No one is able to borrow money right now and they need to have a constant supply of short term loans in order to make their businesses function.

Its not "just the housing market" its the entire American financial system on the edge of a collapse.

Seriously, very few people have a full grasp of just what is going on. Its pretty scary shit.

~Manny

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 05:54 PM

Great week of polling for Obama. All he needs is a solid debate performance to wrap this baby up.

McCain blew his wad way too soon and his negative campaigning fully backfired in his face. Whatever October surprise he has left will fall on deaf ears.

whottt

09-21-2008, 08:27 PM

They already have!!!!! Why do you think this shit is happening? They are unwilling to lend anyone money right now and when the interest rate is already fucking ZERO there really isn't shit the fed can do which is why we're in this mess of needing them to buy these assets.

Everyone's investing within the housing market and spreading these bad loans with other investments have absolutely crushed the credit rating of everyone around. No one is able to borrow money right now and they need to have a constant supply of short term loans in order to make their businesses function.

Its not "just the housing market" its the entire American financial system on the edge of a collapse.

Eh...nothing a few corporate bonds won't remedy, if the details are right.

Look...there are primarily 3 segments that are going to take this up the ass...the lending institutions that gave bad loans, the people that encouraged people to take those loans, and the people that took them.

You call it a tragedy...I call it justice.

What I don't understand is how you think Obama's plan to increase corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and capital gains taxes, is going to remedy this situation. And obviously even Obama doesn't think it's a good idea now...which is why he is saying he won't do it now...but it was just two weeks ago he was talking about doing it.

I mean if you are informed you would realize that is going to put the stock market out of business, force corporations out of the country, and jobs, not to mention increase the burden on all the already cash strapped institutions.

And since the interest rates are non-existent the bond market isn't going to benefit from that pull out to the degree that it typically has...

No, that money is going to exit the country.

Along with those corporations.

Along with those jobs.

And on top of all this, Obama has an 800 billion dollar global poverty bill on the table that only W is preventing from going through at this time...if he gets elected with that lefty congress that baby is passed. Guaranteed.

How can you justify any of that shit making sense?

You're a smart guy Manny...it doesn't make sense.

It only makes sense if your goal is to bankrupt the country.

It's not going to make it any easier for anyone to pay their bills. Basically the segment of society that doesn't pay any income tax is going to get a couple thousand dollars, while there is going to be a mass exodus of wealth from this country...

Obama is simply going to buy votes on the cheap to pull this off.

Seriously, very few people have a full grasp of just what is going on. Its pretty scary shit.

~Manny

Well...I was ready to begin stockbroking last summer, the reason I didn't is because there was a mandatory 250 dollar a month transaction fee and I didn't think I could get the clients in the current environment to even attempt paying that fee. 2 years ago I was in the "hottest" real estate market in the country and after losing my ass for a year figured it would be wise to get the hell out of that situation.

Plus, my mom is the top stockbroker in the Southwestern United States for an Independent Brokerage Firm owned by AIG, she's also the former treasurer for a major public utlity in the state of Texas and has brokered multi billion dollar muni bond offerings...she's pretty informed. And she had a really exicting week as you might imagine.

She wouldn't vote for Obama if you put a gun to her head...

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 08:56 PM

Obama is tied in NC according to the latest NC poll! If McCain has to seriously defend VA and NC it will severely limit his ability to go on the offensive and pick off some rust belt Kerry states.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2008, 08:58 PM

:lol @ a few corporate bonds. Who's going to buy bonds from a company on the verge of bankruptcy?

MannyIsGod

09-21-2008, 08:59 PM

BTW you should find where I said Obama has a good economic plan, Whottt. I'm interested to see where that is.

florige

09-21-2008, 09:04 PM

Obama is tied in NC according to the latest NC poll! If McCain has to seriously defend VA and NC it will severely limit his ability to go on the offensive and pick off some rust belt Kerry states.

:lol These polls have been shaky as hell this week. I'm not sure what to believe.

whottt

09-21-2008, 09:10 PM

:lol @ a few corporate bonds. Who's going to buy bonds from a company on the verge of bankruptcy?

Well Carl Icahn and Kirk Kerkorian are two that immediately come to mind.

But beyond that, who says it's going to be the banks on the verge of bankruptcy offering them?

I am talking about banks with sound financial structure looking to expand their market cap and fill the void left by those that went under.

And finally...it's all in the type of bond, if the banks offering them are sound and have sound lending practices, it might be one of the best investments in the world right now.

whottt

09-21-2008, 09:19 PM

BTW you should find where I said Obama has a good economic plan, Whottt. I'm interested to see where that is.

I haven't seen you say he's got a good economic plan. But damned if I can see any other reason for people to be so infatuated with the dude. He's going to tax the rich...that's what I figured leads to his fanatical appeal among some.

It damn sure can't be his war stance anymore...

He's already backed off an immediate pull out of Iraq and is saying he is going to work with the Iraqi PM(which is what the Republicans have been saying from day 1)...that's the only teason I was considering voting for him. There's no other reason to vote for him.

All these tax promises he's making are BS promises that he won't be able to keep...I promise you that....the fact that he's already backed off of rescinding the Bush tax cuts should indicate even he's not willing to tell that kind of lie.

Ultimately...you look at Obama and he's a lawyer...I ask you, how many times have you dealt with a lawyer and come out ahead?

I worked for one a Democrat(which incidentally is around the time I started leaning right).....all he did was fuck the poor, in particular minorities. All the while claiming to be their champion. He preyed upon them.

Anyway...I'm not going to try and change your mind. I'll just encourage you to keep studying the causes of this like you are already doing...see what you end up thinking.

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 09:23 PM

:lol These polls have been shaky as hell this week. I'm not sure what to believe.

What it means is the race is still fluid, undecideds have not made up their minds yet and likely will not until the debates are over. Right now Obama has a lot of voters leaning his way, he needs to bring them home.

Strong debate performance = President Barack Hussein Obama in '09.

He doesn't need to soundly defeat McCain. He just needs to have a solid performance that reassures voters he will be a safe pick.

The more paths Obama has to 270 the better. It means he can spread out his resources now and force McCain to play defense in areas he may not have wanted to, which will also limit how much offense McCain can play considering his age and the fact that Palin has to campaign everywhere with him.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2008, 09:24 PM

whottt

09-21-2008, 09:37 PM

And what banks without sound structure would that be? Which investment banks have low exposure to the sub prime loans?

Do you realize how far reaching this goes? Do you realize that everyone of these banks that fails just starts another domino on another failure? If AIG had failed you would have had a chain reaction of insurance contracts that needed to be fullfiled or proved to be sound which would have flooded the market with assets which would devalue those assets in turn forcing other corportaions' credit ratings lowered because their assests were now worth less requring them to have more capital on hand which would require the selling of more assets and the futher devaluation of said assets etc etc etc etc

I am well aware of that...which is why the government had no choice but to bail them out.

AIG is the largest insurance company in the entire world. They also own about 8 brokerage firms.

Not only that but probably a hundred thousand people in the US alone would have been out of work, and that's not including all the Independent Contractors that work for them.

Still...it would not have been the end of the US if they had gone under.

Do you see how the dependency on short term credit and the inability of firms to gain access to such credit starts a chain reaction?

It's about greed Manny...

Nonthless, with the US having just slightly fewer Jews than Israel...I can promise you money is going to be lent here.

Shastafarian

09-21-2008, 09:41 PM

It's about greed Manny...

Nonthless, with the US having just slightly fewer Jews than Israel...I can promise you money is going to be lent here.

Cool we can add "bigot" to you current list of titles. I also count, "moron", "idiot", "gay" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2781299&postcount=14), "dimwit"...and several others relating to your lack of intelligence.

whottt

09-21-2008, 09:59 PM

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 10:59 PM

Cool we can add "bigot" to you current list of titles. I also count, "moron", "idiot", "gay" (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2781299&postcount=14), "dimwit"...and several others relating to your lack of intelligence.

I'm having a hard time believing whottt is real. Nobody can be this stupid.

Shastafarian

09-21-2008, 11:11 PM

I'm having a hard time believing whottt is real. Nobody can be this stupid.

I'm convinced it's satire because you're right. No one can be that stupid.

TheMadHatter

09-21-2008, 11:32 PM

I'm convinced it's satire because you're right. No one can be that stupid.

It has to be. Either that or Obama fucked this kid's mom.

Nbadan

09-21-2008, 11:37 PM

I'm having a hard time believing whottt is real. Nobody can be this stupid.

Have you ever read his stuff in the spurs forum? :lol

OH...he's real....

bonnington

09-22-2008, 03:49 AM

I am well aware of that...which is why the government had no choice but to bail them out.

AIG is the largest insurance company in the entire world. They also own about 8 brokerage firms.

Not only that but probably a hundred thousand people in the US alone would have been out of work, and that's not including all the Independent Contractors that work for them.

Still...it would not have been the end of the US if they had gone under.

It's about greed Manny...

Nonthless, with the US having just slightly fewer Jews than Israel...I can promise you money is going to be lent here.

What do "Jews" have to do with this?

whottt

09-22-2008, 05:27 AM

What do "Jews" have to do with this?

Hmmm...I am not interested in going where you want to go with this. Sorry.

bonnington

09-22-2008, 07:14 AM

Hmmm...I am not interested in going where you want to go with this. Sorry.

I don't want to go anywhere, I just asked about what "you", Whottt, posted.

You already gone there, now you get out rather quickly.

As you say, it makes me think.......Hmmmmmmm.

Shastafarian

09-22-2008, 09:36 AM

Hmmm...I am not interested in going where you want to go with this. Sorry.

I wish I had a camera for another....WHOTTT PUSSY MOMENT!!! *bells ringing, fireworks*

Today's whottt pussy moment is brought to you by vagisil. Without vagisil, our good friend whottt would get infections right and left. It takes a lot of care to be such a HUGE PUSSY

Findog

09-22-2008, 09:52 AM

Yeah idiot? And prior to 2004 American had never re-elected a President that lost the popular vote....much less given him a majority.

JQ Adams losing to Andy Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes losing to Samuel Tilden in 1876
Grover Cleveland losing to Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

You honestly believe these are relevant to the 2004 election? Umm, okay...

The more important factor in that election was Bush's wartime incumbency.

No shit...says the Democrats sucked at a historic level, they gave arguably the most unpopular President in history more votes than any President in history.

It says a lot of bad things about the American electorate as well. But hey, we do agree one ONE thing, Kerry was a lousy candidate. Perhaps if Hillary had any metaphorical balls, she would've run in 2004.

PS: Your VP from 2004 is a bigger scumbag than Cheney

John Edwards lied this country into an even bigger and unnecessary war than Iraq???????

and your VP from 2000 is now supporting the Republicans.

Joe Lieberman was never *my* VP, as I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket, and I'm not a Democrat either, so I don't claim Joe and I never have. Being on the opposite side of an issue apart from Joe Lieberman is a good place to be IMO.

Who's stupid?

whot was that?

Findog

09-22-2008, 10:00 AM

PS: To Manny or Florige...if you guys want to make an appearance in the NY Indepence Party thread I have some information to share probably relevant to this thread. If you guys are interested...looking for the participation of some libs I don't have on ignore before I do that though.

whottt, how come I am not on ignore? Is it because I am not "enough of a debating challenge" and I make you "look good?"

Shastafarian

09-22-2008, 10:04 AM

whottt, how come I am not on ignore? Is it because I am not "enough of a debating challenge" and I make you "look good?"

He claims he gets bored reading our posts because he's seen it all before. I'm moving away from my thoughts that it's all just satire. I'm thinking he might be schizophrenic

A person diagnosed with schizophrenia may demonstrate disorganized and unusual thinking and speech, auditory hallucinations, and delusions. Social isolation commonly occurs for a variety of reasons. Impairment in social cognition is associated with schizophrenia, as are symptoms of paranoia from delusions and hallucinations, and the negative symptoms of apathy and avolition.

TheMadHatter

09-22-2008, 10:12 AM

He claims he gets bored reading our posts because he's seen it all before. I'm moving away from my thoughts that it's all just satire. I'm thinking he might be schizophrenic

Spot on shasta.

carrecaminos

09-22-2008, 12:49 PM

I wish I had a camera for another....WHOTTT PUSSY MOMENT!!! *bells ringing, fireworks*

Today's whottt pussy moment is brought to you by vagisil. Without vagisil, our good friend whottt would get infections right and left. It takes a lot of care to be such a HUGE PUSSY

Whottt can see it now.

whottt

09-22-2008, 07:35 PM

JQ Adams losing to Andy Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes losing to Samuel Tilden in 1876
Grover Cleveland losing to Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

You honestly believe these are relevant to the 2004 election? Umm, okay...

Idiot...you didn't say anything about being relevant to 2004, you said wartime incumbents with no qualifiers. That's what you said.

Furthermore...it's very relevant because the reaction when Bush was elected in 2000 was very similar to those other times. Very similar, as will be W's legacy.

The fact that you are IGNORANT of this...does not mean it's not relevant.

It says a lot of bad things about the American electorate as well. But hey, we do agree one ONE thing, Kerry was a lousy candidate.

Yes he was...and IMO, W getting elected in the first place was unfortunate for us all....it was no brainer to unseat him all you had to do was give us anyone that wasn't a traitor running on an immediate pullout, appease, kiss French, German and UN ass, platform.

John Edwards lied this country into an even bigger and unnecessary war than Iraq???????

Joe Lieberman was never *my* VP, as I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket, and I'm not a Democrat either, so I don't claim Joe and I never have. Being on the opposite side of an issue apart from Joe Lieberman is a good place to be IMO.

Doesn't change the fact that many of the asshats I am now arguing with, thought those guys were great candidates at the time...and now they don't.

Guess what that means?

whottt

09-22-2008, 07:45 PM

whottt, how come I am not on ignore? Is it because I am not "enough of a debating challenge" and I make you "look good?"

It's not about being a debating challenge, it's not about being stupid or smart...it's about having any kind of entertainment value, and not being totally lame.

Shastafarian in particular, he's just....nothing. He's like Rocky V...in his first post he was already like Rocky V, with no Rocky I II III or IV to his credit.

Just...instantly Rocky V. Lifeless vacuous suck.

A Cardinals Lions game.

TCU VS SMU

Spurs Report personified.

blech.

whottt

09-22-2008, 07:48 PM

Whottt can see it now.

Yep...still belongs on ignore.

Shastafarian

09-22-2008, 08:42 PM

It's not about being a debating challenge, it's not about being stupid or smart...it's about having any kind of entertainment value, and not being totally lame.

Shastafarian in particular, he's just....nothing. He's like Rocky V...in his first post he was already like Rocky V, with no Rocky I II III or IV to his credit.

Just...instantly Rocky V. Lifeless vacuous suck.

A Cardinals Lions game.

TCU VS SMU

Spurs Report personified.

blech.

Thanks?

For those keeping score that's

whottt - 5 times being a pussy in the past 24 hours

Stay tuned for tomorrow's count when we will undoubtedly see another, "he has no entertainment value" or "he bores me" or "typical spursreport". Readers may wish to send recommendations on further research in to the Whottt Is A Pussy Foundation. We here at the Foundation seek to better understand why whottt is such a pussy. Is it his inferior intellect? Is it his lack in confidence in debating people? No one is sure and we here at the Foundation want to find out what it is that makes whottt such a huge pussy. Our scientists are working tirelessly to come to a conclusion. Thank you and good night.

Johnny_Blaze_47

09-22-2008, 08:49 PM

Shastafarian

09-22-2008, 08:53 PM

You know, I don't ever really agree with most of Whottt's political statements (and a few of his basketball ones, too), but honestly, Shast, it's becoming quite tired.

Try to make a point without swinging from Whottt's nuts or STFU.

I make plenty of points in other threads. I just find it too much fun in this thread to point out what a huge pussy whottt is.

Also, since this a thread based on prognosticating the electoral outcome of the election that is still over a month away, what points are there really to be made? "This guy predicts Wyoming will go Obama" "No this guy predicts California might go McCain" <-----whottt. So if you don't like me making baseless or more probably, attacks based on a whole lot of whottt stupidity, well then you can kiss my ass. Don't post or put me on ignore.

Cry Havoc

09-22-2008, 11:48 PM

The ownership of whottt exhibited by Manny in this thread is nothing short of spectacular.

:wow

TheMadHatter

09-23-2008, 12:03 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2881108448_6d7e3ac4f5_o.png

Great news for Obama. The polls are trending his way, if he delivers a strong debate performance we could potentially be looking at an Obama blowout. The wheels are falling off the "Straight Talk" express, America is seeing McCain and his camp for who they really are. A bunch of lying SOB's.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:16 AM

I agree with Manny

Fixed...s'all you had to say.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:18 AM

Cry Havoc

09-23-2008, 12:20 AM

Fixed...s'all you had to say.

Or.... Manny is actually showing a fair working knowledge of the system, and you resort to stating that our economy is safe because there are still Jews in America.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:31 AM

Or.... Manny is actually showing a fair working knowledge of the system

and you resort to stating that our economy is safe because there are still Jews in America.

Oh my bad...scuse me for not immediately isolating the point in this 22 page thread, the bulk of which is about electoral maps and polls, where you think I was owned.

After all...you were so clear about that point, like a sharp judge of ownership should be. :tu

I gave a much more detailed opinion than just that there are Jews in this country..but that is a factor and I continually get laughed off on what I consider to be common sense evaluations like that...and I am just about always right on them...guffaw away.

Bottom line....alarmism. I'm not saying there are no problems...but I am saying that the idea that we are anywhere close to the Great Depression right now is a ludicrous one....don't get caught up in the politiciazation of this.

But then again....I suspect you are long since a lost cause in that war anyway.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 12:49 AM

Oh my bad...scuse me for not immediately isolating the point in this 22 page thread, the bulk of which is about electoral maps and polls, where you think I was owned.

There are 28 pages. Mini-owned for you not being able to read.

I gave a much more detailed opinion than just that there are Jews in this country..but that is a factor and I continually get laughed off on what I consider to be common sense evaluations like that...and I am just about always right on them...guffaw away.

Yep, still a bigot. But I guess we can add a modifier to that as well. How about nutjob? Or paranoid delusional bigot? I like that one.

2centsworth

09-23-2008, 01:26 AM

Obama seems to have significant momentum right now. It's coming down to the debates. Polling seems about as volatile as the market.

florige

09-23-2008, 07:10 AM

Obama seems to have significant momentum right now. It's coming down to the debates. Polling seems about as volatile as the market.

Still a month and a half to go. The first debate McCain might draw some momentum because foreign policy is his strong suit.

2centsworth

09-23-2008, 08:42 AM

McCain losing more ground http://www.electoral-vote.com/ .

Obama has been very quiet over the past week. The less he talks the better he does in the polls.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2008, 10:44 AM

whottt

09-23-2008, 11:54 AM

He's spoken a lot he's just made really efficent use of his air time. He's avoided saying anything really stupid while McCain last week was issuing idiocy almost every day. I maen the fundementals of the economy are strong may end up being the statement that cost him this election.

Disagree completely...I think this week is net a loss for Obama. Basically we had an economic disaster this week, that a lot of people feel is the responsibility of the Republicans, and Obama got a minimal gain out of it at best. This could have been an election sealer if played correctly, and it wasn't.

I don't really get how you could expect a week like this to boost McCain's numbers no matter what McCain did or said...meanwhile it could have really boosted Obama's numbers, and the end result is that it really didn't.

An out of context quote isn't going to swing anyone that has remained undecided this long...the people swung by out of context quotes long ago decided who they would be voting for...

And I still say the polls are giving conflicting results...for instance yesterday they had polls showing McCain ahead in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, and today they have polls saying exactly the opposite...and that big Obama surge in Michigan and Colorado isn't showing up in every poll.

And now polls are starting to show McCain ahead in NH which will offset what looks to be a definite loss in NM....not to mention showing McCain ahead in Nevada.

Flipping Iowa, Colorado and NM while losing NH won't get Obama elected...

101A

09-23-2008, 11:59 AM

Disagree completely...I think this week is net a loss for Obama. Basically we had an economic disaster this week, that a lot of people feel is the responsibility of the Republicans, and Obama got a minimal gain out of it at best. This could have been an election sealer if played correctly, and it wasn't.

I don't really get how you could expect a week like this to boost McCain's numbers no matter what McCain did or said...meanwhile it could have really boosted Obama's numbers, and the end result is that it really didn't.

An out of context quote isn't going to swing anyone that has remained undecided this long...the people swung by out of context quotes long ago decided who they would be voting for...

And I still say the polls are giving conflicting results...for instance yesterday they had polls showing McCain ahead in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, and today they have polls saying exactly the opposite...and that big Obama surge in Michigan and Colorado isn't showing up in every poll.

And now polls are starting to show McCain ahead in NH which will offset what looks to be a definite loss in NM....not to mention showing McCain ahead in Nevada.

Flipping Iowa, Colorado and NM while losing NH won't get Obama elected...

Could get us a tie, however. 269 - 269

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:05 PM

BTW...back to the original post that started this thread...

I am ready to make some calls on the electoral map after studying some results from the 2004 election and 2008 primaries...

With the qualifier that anything can change in the debates...

I do think Obama is going to end up getting Colo, NM and Iowa...

But I think McCain is definitely going to take Penn, Wisconsin and NH....I think all the other 2004 Bush states are going red again BTW....this means VA, Ohio and Florida.

I think NJ and Minn are going to be close calls...

I definitely think NY remains a possibility in fact I am leanding towards thinking McCain will take that state in this election and all the reasons I stated originally are still factors, plus new ones have come about...the main one being the Democrats coming off as complete assholes about the anti-Iran rally. They actually managed to turn a Repuclican into a hero at a protest...I think that's a first, ever. There will be a backlash for that stunt, a backlash from staunch politically active Democrats in NYC, which is the only reason the Democrats win NY. A backlash towards the Dems, and especially towards one HUSSEIN Obama...who was soundly smeared in the primaries there by Hillary. Too many things working agianst Obama in NY, and nothing going for him there......and too many things working in McCain's favor.

If you guys think Obama is going to win NY simply because he's a Democrat...you are mistaken. And you will be proven wrong.

2centsworth

09-23-2008, 12:05 PM

He's spoken a lot he's just made really efficent use of his air time.

all he has said is that he blames the republicans. that's it, but saying nothing else is smart on his part.

He's avoided saying anything really stupid while McCain last week was issuing idiocy almost every day. I maen the fundementals of the economy are strong may end up being the statement that cost him this election.

he gets lost in economic discussion. However, by accident he is close to one of the solutions to our long-term economic problems which is cutting spending. The next two solutions are Energy Independence and Reducing Health Care Expenses.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 12:07 PM

BTW...back to the original post that started this thread...

I am ready to make some calls on the electoral map after studying some results from the past election...

With the qualifier than anything can change in the debates...

I do think Obama is going to end up getting Colo, NM and Iowa...

But I think McCain is definitely going to take Penn, Wisconsin and NH....I think all the other 2004 Bush states are going red again BTW.

I think NJ and Minn are going to be close calls...

I definitely think NY remains a possibility in fact I am leanding towards thinking McCain will take that state in this election and all the reasons I stated originally are still factors, plus new ones have come about...the main one being the Democrats coming off as complete asshole about the anti-Iran rally.....they actually managed to turn a Repuclican into a hero at a protest...I think that's a first, ever. There will be a backlash for that stunt...especially towards HUSSEIN Obama.

You're smart.

2centsworth

09-23-2008, 12:17 PM

Whottt,

NY is going to be a lot closer than people think, but Obama is going to pull that one out. Probably by about 5 points.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:28 PM

Could get us a tie, however. 269 - 269

If it's that close it's going to be dicier than that since Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes. I don't think there's that much of a chance for a tie for a variety of reasons...main one being that I think McCain is going to do better than Bush did in either of his elections...he should, since he's much more likeable, morderate, and has a VP candidate whose popularity exceeds that of the entire Republican party since about 1988.

McCain is going to pull over 300 EV in this election, I think he's going to get more votes than Bush did in 2004, and I don't think Obama is going to get as many as Kerry did in 2004.

Findog

09-23-2008, 12:31 PM

If it's that close it's going to be dicier than that since Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes. I don't think there's that much of a chance for a tie for a variety of reasons...main one being that I think McCain is going to do better than Bush did in either of his elections...he should, since he's much more likeable, morderate, and has a VP candidate whose popularity exceeds that of the entire Republican party since about 1988.

McCain is going to pull over 300 EV in this election, I think he's going to get more votes than Bush did in 2004, and I don't think Obama is going to get as many as Kerry did in 2004.

I'm interested in a sig bet over this.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 12:33 PM

I'm interested in a sig bet over this.

I'd go in with you but whottt is such a pussy. He'll never agree/live up to it.

DarkReign

09-23-2008, 12:36 PM

I'd go in with you but whottt is such a pussy. He'll never agree/live up to it.

Bullshit. Whottttttttt may be many things, but I sincerely doubt he'd welch on a bet.

But then again, its a stupid bet so I doubt he takes it all anyway.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:38 PM

Whottt,

NY is going to be a lot closer than people think, but Obama is going to pull that one out. Probably by about 5 points.

Did you check into the details of the Idependence Party of NY endorsement?

Aside from the fact that they have an official ballot line in NY I think it's important for a number of other reasons....

LOL the coolest one being is that they are affiliated with 3 other Independence parties in other states...

Those other states?

Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Virginia(kinda)

:lmao

I think this is a sign that Bloomberg is leaning toward endorsing McCain.

Just keep in mind...in 1992 a centrist Republican running as an Independent pulled over a million votes in NY. I'm not talking about Daddy Bush...I'm talking about H Ross Perot.

Over a million votes in NY, in 1992.

Guilianni and Bloomberg both were Democrats who jumped to the Republican Party at some point in their careers...McCain has a similar appeal.

Centrists Republicans win in NY....even at the National level...people don't realize it becase they haven't really had a Centrist Republican on the ballot since about 1984.

But check out how many votes Perot got there...in 92 and 96.

Check out how many votes the Independence Party endorsee for Mayor and State Senator has gotten there.....even Nader.

That was a huge endorsement.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 12:42 PM

Bullshit. Whottttttttt may be many things, but I sincerely doubt he'd welch on a bet.

But then again, its a stupid bet so I doubt he takes it all anyway.

I agree. But I don't want to underestimate his stupidity and arrogance.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:55 PM

I'm interested in a sig bet over this.

:lol

A few weeks ago Manny was wanting 3000 bucks on Obama...now while he may still be willing to do that, I guarantee you that at points since he originally made that statement, he's been glad no one took him up on it.

Not interested in betting on this...I wasn't interested in betting on it when it was for money, and I'm not interested in betting on it for anything else...we'll just see what happens.

The idea anyone would think I am pussy about betting is a ridiculous notion, since anyone that hasn't spent most of their message board career with their stupid fucking head stuck up their stupid fucking ass at Spurs Report, knows I have made bets I was certain to lose, just to anti-jinx the Spurs to a title.

whottt

09-23-2008, 12:56 PM

Bullshit. Whottttttttt may be many things, but I sincerely doubt he'd welch on a bet.

But then again, its a stupid bet so I doubt he takes it all anyway.

:tu

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96356&page=2&highlight=title

Stupid fucking SpursReporters fucking this site up...

I still haven't picked out JT's title yet...wasn't planning on having to do so.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 12:58 PM

I think it's funny that he thinks he's getting to me by harping on the fact that I used to post at Spursreport. Keep it comin buddy!

Oh...you're still a huge pussy. It's a bet on an internet forum signature. Grow a pair and back up what you're projecting will happen. Or continue to be labeled a huge pussy.

florige

09-23-2008, 01:55 PM

MannyIsGod

09-23-2008, 01:59 PM

Well if Whottt thinks last week was a net loss for Obama then there's not much I can say.

Shastafarian

09-23-2008, 02:01 PM

Geeezus Whottt, you don't think thats a stretch?? :lol

Well if Whottt thinks last week was a net loss for Obama then there's not much I can say.

You guys have been here longer than me. It's all a charade right? He doesn't actually believe the stuff he posts does he? He does it to get a rise out of us right? No one can be as dumb as he seems to be.

DarkReign

09-23-2008, 02:34 PM

You guys have been here longer than me. It's all a charade right? He doesn't actually believe the stuff he posts does he? He does it to get a rise out of us right? No one can be as dumb as he seems to be.

No, Whottt is the ST equivalent of the Old Testament. Theres a lot of shit in the OT that no one preaches anymore because its scary and not very politically correct. You know, the Fire and Brimstone stuff.

Manny and Whottttt (to my understanding) actually know each other in real life (maybe at ST get-togethers "GTGs" I guess).

The way you see Whotttt speak with Manny is the way Whotttt actually is in real life. An intelligent yet opinionated person who is willing to engage people on a civil level, so long as they arent talking out of their ass.

The way Whottt posts here at ST is the polar opposite. An intelligent yet belligerent partisan who actively seeks your disapproval and baits with the simplest form of insult, name-calling.

IMO, Whotttt the real person is probably a person I would like speaking with because he is smart and opinionated, added bonus because his view on things is different than mine (call me crazy, but I dont particularly enjoy engaging people in political discourse who out-and-out agree with me on everything....but seriously, thats never happened in my life).

But the Whottt who posts here at ST is a guy I would probably end up getting into a physical confrontation with, not because I dont agree with him or that his view on things is different than mine, but because of his propensity to dismiss dissenting/opposing opinions out of hand with the requisite jabs at your intelligence level and requisite name-calling tend to boil my blood. I dont have sympathy for idiots, but I cant name one person in the Political Forum whom I would consider dull or moronic (maybe NASCARdad, but hes someone's troll).

I would call some (most) partisan shills, or aloof dickheads, but not dumb or stupid.

I approach this forum as the person I am....not the person I want to be or even the person I think I am, just me. All the flaws and leaps of logic, being wrong, feeling right....its all a part of it.

I was just convinced there cant be so many people in the world convinced of their own superiority. Alas, I came to ST and died a slow, ideological death.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2008, 02:40 PM

I'd like to point out that the only times I've been around Whott IRL he's been either shit faced drunk or high.

I'm not sure what that means, I just wanted to point it out.

:lol

Anti.Hero

09-23-2008, 02:42 PM

I'll make a sig bet. Who wants a piece of the Anti.hero

MannyIsGod

09-23-2008, 02:45 PM

Terms?

DarkReign

09-23-2008, 02:50 PM

^ like clockwork

florige

09-23-2008, 03:50 PM

Terms?

^ like clockwork

:lmao

florige

09-23-2008, 03:58 PM

You guys have been here longer than me. It's all a charade right? He doesn't actually believe the stuff he posts does he? He does it to get a rise out of us right? No one can be as dumb as he seems to be.

This is actually my first time talking to him. TimVp and Whottt have had some epic discussions in the actual spurs forum. He has some interesting takes on things. But I have to say he sticks by his guns, and he normally comes up with some formula as to why he says what he says. :lol He is cool though.
I think it's safe to say that Findog is the TimVp of the Political forum, or at least this thread when it comes to debating with him. Those two fuckers go back and forth relentlessly. I think they bring out the best in each other....:lol
Manny reasons with him, but I very rarely see the two arguing with each other.

florige

09-23-2008, 04:42 PM

McCain gained 2 points in CNN gallup poll today....:bang

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/