How do McCain or Obama get to 270?

[florige]

We know.

Kind of like Dems were doing earlier in this thread.

Bottom line is simply that the country is going through a devastating financial crisis. The Republicans hold the White House. EVERYTHING else is academic. In bent parties do not win in situations like this. I just wish the country could rally behind a united "throw the bums out" banner - to throw Congressmen and Women to the curb!

What amazes me, despite the horrible news every minute on the crisis - is that this is still, at all, a race. Obama is a historically weak candidate, IMO. Don't talk about unfair campaign tactics, stupidity of American people; racism; all irrelevant. Obama has not been able to distance himself from McCain. He's got more money; he's got better press, he's got an historically reviled and unpopular president to run against, he's got an opponent not well liked by his own party and, most importantly, he's got a general feeling of doom and gloom in the nation working in his favor. And yet, he hasn't closed the deal.

Obama's gonna win; I just cannot see a scenario that suggest otherwise right now; but unless he changes the landscape significantly between now and election day, he starts as a weak president; with little mandate. He needs Congress to be succesfull; and if his mandate isn't any more than it's looking like it's going to be; it's gonna be tough.

Dems ed up. Should have nominated Hillary. She'd have cut McCain's heart out by now.

Yeah that I agree with you on.....

[MannyIsGod]

We know.

Kind of like Dems were doing earlier in this thread.

Bottom line is simply that the country is going through a devastating financial crisis. The Republicans hold the White House. EVERYTHING else is academic. In bent parties do not win in situations like this. I just wish the country could rally behind a united "throw the bums out" banner - to throw Congressmen and Women to the curb!

What amazes me, despite the horrible news every minute on the crisis - is that this is still, at all, a race. Obama is a historically weak candidate, IMO. Don't talk about unfair campaign tactics, stupidity of American people; racism; all irrelevant. Obama has not been able to distance himself from McCain. He's got more money; he's got better press, he's got an historically reviled and unpopular president to run against, he's got an opponent not well liked by his own party and, most importantly, he's got a general feeling of doom and gloom in the nation working in his favor. And yet, he hasn't closed the deal.

Obama's gonna win; I just cannot see a scenario that suggest otherwise right now; but unless he changes the landscape significantly between now and election day, he starts as a weak president; with little mandate. He needs Congress to be succesfull; and if his mandate isn't any more than it's looking like it's going to be; it's gonna be tough.

Dems ed up. Should have nominated Hillary. She'd have cut McCain's heart out by now.

I'll address this at some point in another thread I've been wanting to start dealing with asking people to post why they support who they support but one thing I'd like to say here is that how can the Dems have messed up if they win with Obama? Simply because you're of the opinion that Hillary would have won in a larger fashion doesn't mean much if you get in. Winning is Winning, ask George Bush

[101A]

I'll address this at some point in another thread I've been wanting to start dealing with asking people to post why they support who they support but one thing I'd like to say here is that how can the Dems have messed up if they win with Obama? Simply because you're of the opinion that Hillary would have won in a larger fashion doesn't mean much if you get in. Winning is Winning, ask George Bush

Winning is not winning.

The bigger you win by, the longer your coattails are. She, IMO, would have solidified leads in congress; she would have had more power - could have made Congress her . You win weak, you can be a lame duck from just about day 1. Bill learned this his first two years; his Dem. Congress, more than anything made him so unpopular; so much so that the Dems lost congress in that 1st off year cycle.

[MannyIsGod]

Winning is not winning.

The bigger you win by, the longer your coattails are. She, IMO, would have solidified leads in congress; she would have had more power - could have made Congress her . You win weak, you can be a lame duck from just about day 1. Bill learned this his first two years; his Dem. Congress, more than anything made him so unpopular; so much so that the Dems lost congress in that 1st off year cycle.

Its not that simple because Obama has brought in more money that Hillary would have. A lot of that money has been funnelled into the DNC and directly by Obama's campaign into states Hillary would have no shot in which can help out local races.

Really, nothing I saw showed Hillary having a better affect on down ballot races than Obama.

[Cry Havoc]

Winning is not winning.

The bigger you win by, the longer your coattails are. She, IMO, would have solidified leads in congress; she would have had more power - could have made Congress her . You win weak, you can be a lame duck from just about day 1. Bill learned this his first two years; his Dem. Congress, more than anything made him so unpopular; so much so that the Dems lost congress in that 1st off year cycle.

And that's your opinion. Personally I don't feel that Hillary stood a better chance against McCain than Obama does. Hillary might have come out swinging a lot earlier than Obama, but would McCain have been so desperate as to pick a completely unknown as his VP to match the iconic stature that Obama has obtained? I think McCain runs a much smoother, safer campaign against Hillary. He doesn't need to reach to keep it close against her.

I think it's strange that people think Hillary would have things all wrapped up by now. Obama came out of nowhere with virtually no support to start with, and destroyed her campaign. She had no organization and clearly did not trust the people around her, as evidenced by the numerous changes she made in the middle of the campaign.

I see the polls close or with a slight McCain lead after the first debate, after which Obama slowly takes the lead and pulls away consistently until election time. That is, if the debate even happens.

[whottt]

3 words - Margin of Error

Margin of error is a factor in every close poll.

[whottt]

Thats not evidence the weights are off. Thats evidence that the Republican's base was becoming more excited. You're assuming the pollsters are not taking this into account. Show me the internals you think are off, Whottt.

I think all the internals weighting by party ID are off and I've given several reasons why...

There are more registered Democrats than Republicans right now, yes because the Democrats have pushed to register young voters and minorities, but also because of the 2006 elections, because of the Democratic Primaries. The thing is historically party affiliation hasn't been a major factor in Presidential Elections, and it doesn't mean everyone that registered Democrat over the past 2 years is going to vote for Obama.

You want proof? There were more registered Democrats in 2004...


You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a poll of newly registered Democrats since 2006...

...did you not hear Rush encouraging Red State Republicans to go vote for Obama in the primaries? He did it every day.

Those are the only states Obama won in the primaries.

[DarkReign]

@ whotttt

I have seen you comment on the merits of Palin politically (in so much as she has obviously boosted the campaign and invigorated the base).

But what about her as policy-maker and breaker?

I guess my point is, I seriously dont think McCain is going to last his first term. I dont, there I said it. As you probably know, the POTUS is by far the single most stressful job the world has ever known, period. Just look at Bush Jr/Clinton/Carter pre-POTUS and post-POTUS. It grinds you to no end.

So, IMO, McCain will die in office if elected. I could be wrong (I sincerely hope I am), but I have no confidence in a 72 year old man who spent a good part of his third decade on earth in a POW camp.

IMO, Palin has a very, very real chance of becoming POTUS if the McCain ticket is elected.

What are your feelings on that?

[Findog]

Dark Reign, you're in Michigan. Your prediction for who carries the state, your gut opinion.

[whottt]

Source of these thoughts that is outside of Whottt's head?

That is the primary reason...but I feel I've been pretty objective in my reasoning why.

If you want to believe this, then by all means you're free to do so. But that doesn't mean its going to carry much weight without some actual evidence for me.

If you want some actual evidence check out some of the recent articles I've posted in this

For example this:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=658

Be sure to check out the Idependents in that article...not to mention the totals by party ID.


And contrast them with the votes by party ID 2004:


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html


Then tell me I am just pulling this totally out of my ass.



Sin,


A registered Democrat

[Findog]

But what about her as policy-maker and breaker?

<crickets chirping>

[Shastafarian]

Her as a policy maker/breaker?

She likes shooting things...so maybe a "No Animal Left Alive" initiative?

[whottt]

@ whotttt

I have seen you comment on the merits of Palin politically (in so much as she has obviously boosted the campaign and invigorated the base).

But what about her as policy-maker and breaker?

I guess my point is, I seriously dont think McCain is going to last his first term. I dont, there I said it. As you probably know, the POTUS is by far the single most stressful job the world has ever known, period. Just look at Bush Jr/Clinton/Carter pre-POTUS and post-POTUS. It grinds you to no end.

So, IMO, McCain will die in office if elected. I could be wrong (I sincerely hope I am), but I have no confidence in a 72 year old man who spent a good part of his third decade on earth in a POW camp.

IMO, Palin has a very, very real chance of becoming POTUS if the McCain ticket is elected.

What are your feelings on that?

I like her more than McCain...I have a more favorable opinion of McCain now because he selected her.

I think she'd a better President than McCain, or Obama, or Biden.


I think she'd be a more honest President.


I don't care if she knows how to be President right now...no first time President knows how to be President when elected...they always learn on the job.


The President elected most recently who probably best knew how to be President when he was elected, was Daddy Bush... that, he sucked as a President....he got elected because he was running against Dukakis.




You guys are mistaken if you think she's only energized the conservative base...I'm not the conservative base. And I am definitely pro-choice, and by education I am a scientist, in fact I am a scientist that studies the origins of religions...and I know just how piecemeal most of them are...

Doesnt' change anything. I still like her best because I think she's the most honest, and I think she's got the most common sense as well.

[whottt]

What the has Obama done? How is he more qualified? He's not.


And you guys can deny it...but Obama is indecisive. He's clearly got a problem with that.

[Findog]

What the has Obama done? How is he more qualified? He's not.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Obama doesn't get flustered and end up looking like a moron in the presence of Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric.

[101A]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Obama doesn't get flustered and end up looking like a moron in the presence of Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric.

I didn't think Palin looked flustered.

[DarkReign]

Dark Reign, you're in Michigan. Your prediction for who carries the state, your gut opinion.

Admittedly, I am terrible at this.



Obama.



I say that because historically Michigan is a blue state (nationally, not on the state level though). I say it because I am in the auto industry and I know for a fact that the UAW is like the Bible to most of their ranks, and theyre for Obama.

I say it because we are probably the most racially segregated state in the Union. I sincerely believe the black population in the Metro Area (and statewide) are going to turn out to vote in historic, record numbers, and I have a pretty good idea who theyre voting for.

BUT, McCain is talking about Auto Bailouts, which is slimey, IMO. It speaks to him preying on the weak at their weakest, because after this debacle of legislation right now, I fully expect there to never be any sort of bailout ever again for any one.

That may have an influence. You also have the affluent Oakland and Macomb counties (a part of the Metro area). Most surely Oakland will go McCain (it used to be the 4th richest county in America....cant remember) with Macomb being a toss-up, IMO.

The Downriver Folk (thats people south, southwest and west of Detroit) are another lot thats hard to predict. Lots of hillbillies, some are red, some are blue. They throw a great party, but when your kids bus-stop is in front of a porno shop, something speaks to ignorance (seen that exact situation in Lincoln Park). The central and west portions of Michigan are important as well.

They do not rely on the auto industry like we in the east do (in some ways). Nor do I travel there very often to get a gauge. But the rest of mid-to-northern Michigan is red...thru and thru, to the bone, forever.

Democrat = Gun Control
Republican = More Guns

...in their minds anyway. Their problem is, they arent enough in numbers. Theyre sparsely populated, barely interested and completely unreliable to even go to the polls.

As for the Upper Penninsula, youd have to ask someone from Wisconsin about them. They call us in the Lower Penninsula "trolls" (we live "under" the Mackinac Bridge). They cheer for the Green Bay Packers and have annoying, Fargo-like accents.

[MannyIsGod]

I think all the internals weighting by party ID are off and I've given several reasons why...

There are more registered Democrats than Republicans right now, yes because the Democrats have pushed to register young voters and minorities, but also because of the 2006 elections, because of the Democratic Primaries. The thing is historically party affiliation hasn't been a major factor in Presidential Elections, and it doesn't mean everyone that registered Democrat over the past 2 years is going to vote for Obama.

You want proof? There were more registered Democrats in 2004...


You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a poll of newly registered Democrats since 2006...

...did you not hear Rush encouraging Red State Republicans to go vote for Obama in the primaries? He did it every day.

Those are the only states Obama won in the primaries.

Thats not proof the weights are off Whottt. You have to look at each individual poll and see what they're weighting each party - IF AT ALL - to decide of they're off.

You can't just arbitrarily say the democrats are registering fewer people than they think to point out the polls are off. Pollsters don't just say ZOMG lots of NEW DEMS and then rate them at 70%. Most don't even weight the polls.

I'm getting annoyed at how often people just make remarks about how much the polls suck without providing specific internals to show the industry wide (allgedly) inaccuracies.

[DarkReign]

I like her more than McCain...I have a more favorable opinion of McCain now because he selected her.

I think she'd a better President than McCain, or Obama, or Biden.

[sic]

You guys are mistaken if you think she's only energized the conservative base...I'm not the conservative base. And I am definitely pro-choice, and by education I am a scientist, in fact I am a scientist that studies the origins of religions...and I know just how piecemeal most of them are...

Doesnt' change anything. I still like her best because I think she's the most honest, and I think she's got the most common sense as well.

That is a bad-ass profession you have there.

You seem to really be infatuated with her honesty, which is understandable.

But wasnt Carter honest, too (to a fault they say, I wasnt born yet)? Didnt make him any less incompetent, did it?

Also, I can see where your impression of her honesty comes, but where does your impression of her policy (which you didnt comment on) come from? It is my understanding after her nomination as VP, reporters and journalists alike had a hard time even coming up with opinions of hers on foreign policy.

Now she is being directly linked as a Rove and Cheney pick that McCain had to suc b to? Not only that, but in your opinion, is it good that she has been sequestered from the media?

I mean, you yourself has commented on the "liberal media" and that (I paraphrase entirely) "go ahead Dems, keep attacking her, reeeeal smart move, youre only helping her".

So by that logic, wouldnt it be best to have her in the media constantly? So as the Dems and DailyKos do nothing but attack, attack, attack and by proxy strengthen the notion that she is only being attacked because she is a woman?

My point is, it is my opinion that none of us know anything about her, beyond her RNC acceptance speech and her 2 interviews (Gibson, Couric). Beyond that, we only have her record in Alaska.

Obama is just as inexperienced as she is (federally speaking), I absolutely agree. But Obama was not nominated to his position 10 weeks before the actual election. He had to run his primary against a vet like Clinton, wherein his policy and will were on display (agree or disagree with him, at least you know him)...all over the news, everyday.

Its just to me, 3 of the 4 people in this race are known quan ies, which I believe to be necessary. How you go about becoming a "known" is important as well. She has not gone out of her way to do that, by force or by choice.

And being the VP to the oldest man to be POTUS in history, coupled with health, is a little bit scary to me. Do we even know if she has a backbone?

Standing up to police chiefs is one thing, standing up to your party's leadership while sitting in the biggest chair in the world is entirely another. I am not saying she cant do it.....I am saying I dont know and she isnt helping that.

[Findog]

Palin is honest?



That might be the funniest thing whottt has typed yet.

[TheMadHatter]

I'm starting to think whottt just likes to hear himself talked about, good or bad.

[whottt]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Obama doesn't get flustered and end up looking like a moron in the presence of Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric.

The he doesn't...he gets flustered by softballers totally on his side....Isalmic Faith and all that.

[whottt]

That is a bad-ass profession you have there.

You seem to really be infatuated with her honesty, which is understandable.

But wasnt Carter honest, too (to a fault they say, I wasnt born yet)? Didnt make him any less incompetent, did it?

What made him incompetent was not that he was honest...what made him incompetent was that he thought everyone else was.

Also, I can see where your impression of her honesty comes, but where does your impression of her policy (which you didnt comment on) come from?

Because rigth now she has no policy at the National Level...she's just toeing the line on McCain's.

What I see in her policy as Govenor is fiscal responsibility and centrist social policy...and I like it. I like it a lot.

I also see her not thinking twice about blowing the whistle on anyone...

It is my understanding after her nomination as VP, reporters and journalists alike had a hard time even coming up with opinions of hers on foreign policy.

Her policy is McCain's policy right now...

She doesn't have a foreign policy yet other than non-appeasement...but seeing as how her son is in Iraq I am pretty sure she is commited to doing the right thing.

Now she is being directly linked as a Rove and Cheney pick that McCain had to suc b to?

Oh please...

Not only that, but in your opinion, is it good that she has been sequestered from the media?

Definitely...the media is provably corrupt and deceitful concerning her, see the edited parts from the Charlie Gibson interview for proof of this.

I mean, you yourself has commented on the "liberal media" and that (I paraphrase entirely) "go ahead Dems, keep attacking her, reeeeal smart move, youre only helping her".

So by that logic, wouldnt it be best to have her in the media constantly? So as the Dems and DailyKos do nothing but attack, attack, attack and by proxy strengthen the notion that she is only being attacked because she is a woman?

No...because they edit her comments in such a way as to where they can potray her exactly as they want to, without having to attack her.

My point is, it is my opinion that none of us know anything about her, beyond her RNC acceptance speech and her 2 interviews (Gibson, Couric). Beyond that, we only have her record in Alaska.

Yeap..and her record in Alasak was impressive until Google overwrote the internet 2 days after she was nominated...

That would be, Obama backer, Google.

Obama is just as inexperienced as she is (federally speaking), I absolutely agree. But Obama was not nominated to his position 10 weeks before the actual election. He had to run his primary against a vet like Clinton, wherein his policy and will were on display (agree or disagree with him, at least you know him)...all over the news, everyday.

Its just to me, 3 of the 4 people in this race are known quan ies, which I believe to be necessary. How you go about becoming a "known" is important as well. She has not gone out of her way to do that, by force or by choice.

And being the VP to the oldest man to be POTUS in history, coupled with health, is a little bit scary to me. Do we even know if she has a backbone?

Of course she has a backbone...she played point guard(well).

Standing up to police chiefs is one thing, standing up to your party's leadership while sitting in the biggest chair in the world is entirely another.

She dethroned her parties leadership in Alaska.

I am not saying she cant do it.....I am saying I dont know and she isnt helping that.

Why don't you ask these same questions of Obama?



What is his policy now?

What is it on anything?


And unlike Palin...he's running for President.

[whottt]

Thats not proof the weights are off Whottt. You have to look at each individual poll and see what they're weighting each party - IF AT ALL - to decide of they're off.

Well I know the major ones are weighted.

You can't just arbitrarily say the democrats are registering fewer people than they think to point out the polls are off. Pollsters don't just say ZOMG lots of NEW DEMS and then rate them at 70%. Most don't even weight the polls.

Gallup does, Rasmussen does, Survey USA does...

I'm getting annoyed at how often people just make remarks about how much the polls suck without providing specific internals to show the industry wide (allgedly) inaccuracies.

LOL I feel have shown enough evidence to prove there is some merit to that line of thinking...and I'm not claiming it cons utes ironclad proof I'm right.

[whottt]

Palin is honest?



That might be the funniest thing whottt has typed yet.

It's one thing for Palin to get lost trying to talk about McCain's policy in a hostile interview.

It's entirely another for Obama to get confused about his own policy in a friendly one.