News What are the Key Factors for Victory in the 2008 Presidential Election?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the electoral significance of Hispanic and Black voters in the upcoming Obama-McCain election, highlighting that New Mexico's 5 electoral votes may not be pivotal despite its Hispanic population. Eligible Hispanic voters total approximately 17 million, while Black voters are around 24 million, compared to 151 million White voters, indicating a demographic imbalance. Concerns are raised about the potential impact of a Hispanic vice-presidential candidate for Obama, with opinions divided on whether it would significantly sway Hispanic votes. The conversation also touches on the importance of the vice-presidential picks for both candidates, especially considering McCain's age and the historical context of racial tensions surrounding Obama. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for informed discussions about voter demographics and electoral strategies as the election approaches.

Who will win the General Election?

  • Obama by over 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 16 50.0%

  • Obama by under 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • McCain by over 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • McCain by under 15 Electoral Votes

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • Total voters
    32
  • #101


Code: 
               INTRADE       IOWA ELECTRONIC MARKET

           Obama    McCain      Dem     Rep
June 26    $64.1    $32.4      0.622   0.378
July 11    $65.0    $31.2      0.643   0.358
July 26    $63.2    $32.2      0.688   0.355
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
How Obama Became Acting President (and I guess - soon to be the real one).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html :biggrin:
IT almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind.

. . . .

The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”

. . . .

. . . First, on July 7, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dissed Bush dogma by raising the prospect of a withdrawal timetable for our troops. Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.

. . . .

“We have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party’s candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in “Chicago.” The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled.

. . . .

Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush’s de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. . . .

. . . .
This is a great piece!
 
  • #103
the only thing that gives me some peace over fuming about the stupidity of the electorate, is the fact that bush actually did not win the popular election the first time. i.e. most people wanted an intelligent future nobel laureate over a mean spirited nitwit.

it appears as if obama will likely win this time, but even if he turns around every problem we face from the current admin, will the morons elect another george bush next time?

i mean what was so off putting abut the peace and prosperity of the clinton years that we got gwb?

i am getting discouraged, and fear celebrating too soon now. we could always wind up behind another republican, i.e. dishonest taxpayer gouging right wing, eight ball.

has anybody else noticed that we have less free press now than ever before in america? in the 60's we actually saw the carnage in vietnam, and then we put a stop to it. the ONLY lesson the repubs apparently learned from vietnam was that if you wanted to kill thousands of civilians in a foreign land unmolested, in the name of freedom, you should hide that fact from the public.

many americans today actually seem to care more that their gas prices are higher when they fill up their suv's, than that they are paying taxes to subsidise the deaths and dislocations of tens of thousands of innocent iraqis. where is the moral outrage to accompany the fiscal pain? we are doing something very evil and wrong, and the enemies we are making among ordinary citizens in arab countries are numerous and young.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
mathwonk said:
i am getting discouraged, and fear celebrating too soon now. we could always wind up behind another republican, i.e. dishonest taxpayer gouging right wing, eight ball.

I'm more worried that Obama will end up being a huge let-down. He already F'ed up with the FISA bill and wanting to continue "faith based" garbage that Bush started.
 
  • #105


Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):
Code: 
                     AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS                 |     PROJECTIONS
                                                                 |
Date      RCP1     RCP2     CNN   Elec-Vote  USAtlas-A  Pollster | Elec-Proj  USAtlas-P   
                                                                 |   
06/06   228/190                    287/227                       |  293/245
06/15   238/190                    304/221                       |  304/234      
06/21   238/163  289/249  211/194  317/194    271/191            |  349/189    298/240
06/26   238/163  317/221  211/194  317/194    288/180            |  338/200    298/240 
07/01   238/163  304/234  231/194  317/221    268/180            |  338/200    293/245 
07/06   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/218    268/177            |  338/200    293/245
07/11   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/215    268/188            |  306/232    293/245
07/16   255/163  304/234  231/194  320/204    268/177            |  311/227    293/245
07/21   255/163  322/216  231/194  312/199    268/172   293/214  |  298/240    293/245
07/26   238/163  322/216  221/189  292/195    264/175   284/147  |  338/200    298/240
08/11   238/163  322/216  221/189  289/236    264/202   284/157  |  298/240    293/245
                                                                 |

Markets:
Code: 
               INTRADE       IOWA ELECTRONIC MARKET

           Obama    McCain      Dem     Rep
June 26    $64.1    $32.4      0.622   0.378
July 11    $65.0    $31.2      0.643   0.358
July 26    $63.2    $32.2      0.688   0.355
Aug  11    $59.2    $37.2      0.621   0.377

The markets have been shifting towards McCain over the last few weeks. What's causing it?
 
  • #106


Gokul43201 said:
The markets have been shifting towards McCain over the last few weeks. What's causing it?

I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up. It doesn't help that he downplays the importantance of offshore drilling by comparing the effect to that of properly inflating our tires and tuning up our cars. Over 2/3rds of the electorate now believe that drilling should be at least part of a plan to reduce oil prices.
 
  • #107


chemisttree said:
I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up. It doesn't help that he downplays the importantance of offshore drilling by comparing the effect to that of properly inflating our tires and tuning up our cars. Over 2/3rds of the electorate now believe that drilling should be at least part of a plan to reduce oil prices.

I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.

How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping?
 
  • #108


WarPhalange said:
I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.

How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping?
Maybe never. The so-called "liberal" media give McCain a free pass whenever he changes positions, and when he confuses Iranian Shiites with al Qaeda in Iraq and talks about terrorists hiding in the border region between Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. The media are terrified of Rove's GOP attack machine and as a result, they are FAR tougher on Obama than McCain.
 
  • #109


WarPhalange said:
I thought he got his numbers that offshore drilling = inflating tires from the DOE, or one of those departments.
No. The DoE says that drilling will have no noticeable effect on prices for a couple decades. On the other hand, AAA, NASCAR, McCain and others have said that maintaining correct tire pressure can make an immediate 2-3% reduction in your gasoline expenditure.

McCain likes to attribute unpopular stances that he agrees/d with to Obama, so he can run shamefully slimy ads.
 
  • #110
That's what I meant. What offshore drilling will do over the next X years averaged out = inflating tires properly for that same amount of time.
 
  • #111


Gokul43201 said:
No. The DoE says that drilling will have no noticeable effect on prices for a couple decades. On the other hand, AAA, NASCAR, McCain and others have said that maintaining correct tire pressure can make an immediate 2-3% reduction in your gasoline expenditure.
So what? Obama's comments were not directed at the price of gasoline... he was referring to the amount of oil available from offshore drilling. How many cars do you think are running at least 8 psi low on all 4 tires?

According to the US DOE, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml) fuel economy is adversely affected by 0.4% per psi below the recommended tire pressure for all four tires(they all have to be underinflated). The NHTSA considers a tire underinflated if the pressure is 8 psi less than that recommended by the automobile manufacturer. Multiply the 8 psi by 0.4% loss per psi and you get the 3.2% that Obama was referring to.

Unfortunately only about 3% of passenger vehicles, about 6% of pickup trucks, vans and SUV’s fall into this category.(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-317.pdf ) I'm sure you can do the math from this point.

Obama's statement was a wild exaggeration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112


chemisttree said:
I think it is due to the reports that Obama is flipping on many of his issues. It is starting to add up.
WarPhalange said:
How long do you figure before people catch on to McCain's flip flopping?
It's worse than just flipping, it is waffling, and that's why it is hurting Obama and not McCain. You can't say something like 'I don't like it but I might still agree to do it' like Obama is saying about drilling and nuclear power. That's not Presidential. People know compromises are part of politics, but this is a campaign and people want to hear where you stand and why, not which of your ideals are unimportant enough that you'll give them up when pressured.

That and, again, news: Obama's flipping is more recent - even if it is weeks for Obama vs just months for McCain, any effect of McCain's flip on offshore drilling is already manifested in the numbers. Obama's offshore drilling flip/waffle is only about two weeks old, so its effect is still being sorted out.
 
  • #113


chemisttree said:
So what? Obama's comments were not directed at the price of gasoline... he was referring to the amount of oil available from offshore drilling. How many cars do you think are running at least 8 psi low on all 4 tires?

According to the US DOE, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml) fuel economy is adversely affected by 0.4% per psi below the recommended tire pressure for all four tires(they all have to be underinflated). The NHTSA considers a tire underinflated if the pressure is 8 psi less than that recommended by the automobile manufacturer. Multiply the 8 psi by 0.4% loss per psi and you get the 3.2% that Obama was referring to.

Unfortunately only about 3% of passenger vehicles, about 6% of pickup trucks, vans and SUV’s fall into this category.(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-317.pdf ) I'm sure you can do the math from this point.

Obama's statement was a wild exaggeration.
Wrong.
“There are things that you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said in the July 30, 2008, appearance. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated — simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”
...
In April, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data, to extrapolate that 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires.
...
According to the latest assessment from the Minerals Management Service, the mean estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil in the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently under moratorium is about 18-billion barrels (see here.)

But it couldn’t all be extracted immediately. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That’s 200,000 more barrels per day.

After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that’s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.
...
And we didn’t even talk about tune-ups. (Repairing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test improves gas mileage by 4 percent on average, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Fixing a more serious problem, such as a bad oxygen sensor, can improve mileage by up to 40 percent, the agency says.)
...
For our purposes in evaluating Obama's claim, all the available evidence shows that he's on solid ground in saying that better car and tire maintenance would save as much gasoline as drilling would generate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/
Guess this is why McCain's numbers are improving!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
And to see more on who's been lying the most on the campaign, take a look at this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Number of "pants on fire" lies:

McCain = 3
Biden = 2
Bill Clinton = 2
Hillary = 2
RNC = 2
Richardson, Romney, Edwards, Huckabee, Giuliani, Gravel = 1
Obama = 0

And speaking of exaggerations, try this on for size:
McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense

McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.

More Tax Deceptions

McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.

www.factcheck.org

The Factcheck.org front page has 7 postings of false claims in McCain ads to 2 in Obama ads.

It's pretty clear what McCain's strategy is...and it's working.
 
Last edited:
  • #115
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?
 
  • #116
russ_watters said:
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?
The point that Obama was making is that the potential gains in oil production offered by more off-shore drilling are small and far-off, timewise. Saying that keeping tires properly inflated and keeping your vehicle properly tuned up would save more fuel NOW than could be added through offshore drilling in the 20-or-so years that it would take that production to get on-line is a handy way of putting the relative savings vs anticipated production in perspective. People who deride Obama and say that his energy plan consists of pumping up your tires are being disingenuous at best.

Giving away more oil leases to the oil companies will not increase production. They already have millions of acres of off-shore property under lease that are entirely undeveloped, and they have no incentive to develop those leases because 1) it would cost them money in the short-term to build rigs, drill and pump the oil and 2) the oil companies are already making record profits without having to spend the money to expand development. I think if Obama is elected, he should push Congress to eliminate subsidies for oil companies so that they will have to produce oil to make money and he should try to get the leases revised so that if the oil companies don't develop the fields they have leased, they lose them.
 
  • #117
russ_watters said:
I think everyone is missing the point on this tire inflation thing. Tire inflation is something you must do, not something the government could do. So it is a useless thing for Obama to be talking about and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not offshore drilling should be done. Running for office is about what he's going to do for us, not what he thinks we should do for ourselves (why should I vote for him? He should vote for me!). Besides: my tires are already well inflated. So how is his suggestion helping me?

I agree. Instead of voting for someone who tells us we can do something to help ourselves, we should vote for someone who wants to use the government to its fullest, even if it means expanding it.
 
  • #118
Gokul43201 said:
Wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/
Guess this is why McCain's numbers are improving!

I'm rather surprised that you would refer to a piece of nonsense quoted by Takao Oishi (president of Yokohama Tire) and slavishly repeated ad nauseum by the likes of PolitiFiction.com. You do realize that 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline represents 2.1% of all gasoline used in the country per year? And to achieve this every vehicle would have to have all 4 tires low by 8 psi? NHTSA states that only about 25% drivers have as much as one tire this low! All of the models that correlate rolling resistance to gas mileage assume all 4 tires are equally low, btw. Even the (alleged) letter fired off to Politifiction.com states that only 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted due to tire inflation and that data comes from an GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07246r.html) that attributes it to DOE's unnamed "designated economist". This too is fantasy.

1.2 Billion gallons of gasoline per year represents about a percent of the total annual gasoline usage. This would mean that about a third of all drivers would have to be running around on 4 tires that were all underinflated by at least 8 psi. Total nonsense!

Nice story but it just isn't reality. Reality is about 3% of passenger cars and 6% of light trucks, vans and SUV's are running with 4 tires at 8 psi too low.

This is in part why Obama's numbers are falling.
 
  • #119
chemisttree said:
I'm rather surprised that you would refer to a piece of nonsense quoted by Takao Oishi (president of Yokohama Tire) and slavishly repeated ad nauseum by the likes of PolitiFiction.com. You do realize that 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline represents 2.1% of all gasoline used in the country per year? And to achieve this every vehicle would have to have all 4 tires low by 8 psi? NHTSA states that only about 25% drivers have as much as one tire this low! All of the models that correlate rolling resistance to gas mileage assume all 4 tires are equally low, btw. Even the (alleged) letter fired off to Politifiction.com states that only 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline are wasted due to tire inflation and that data comes from an GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07246r.html) that attributes it to DOE's unnamed "designated economist". This too is fantasy.

1.2 Billion gallons of gasoline per year represents about a percent of the total annual gasoline usage. This would mean that about a third of all drivers would have to be running around on 4 tires that were all underinflated by at least 8 psi. Total nonsense!

Nice story but it just isn't reality. Reality is about 3% of passenger cars and 6% of light trucks, vans and SUV's are running with 4 tires at 8 psi too low.

This is in part why Obama's numbers are falling.
1. We should not trust either the numbers from the Govt. Accountability Office or the numbers from RMA, Auto Club and the California Highway Patrol. We should instead just believe your own "calculation" based on a 0.4% per psi number and a number of unstated assumptions. Incidentally, AAA claims that number is closer to 2% per psi (see AAA Gas Watchers Guide). And we should ignore the fact that all these numbers are only linearizations for low values of underinflation since surely, you don't get 85% fuel efficiency with no pressure (0 psi) in your tires!

2. You have twice chosen to ignore the second part of the Obama's point, involving proper maintenance, which your own DoE link says can make a big difference. You can at least try to be honest in your argument.

3. All it takes to make Obama's claim true without recourse to any maintenance other than tire pressures is that the worst 4% of drivers lose 25% efficiency from underinflation. You can even give the remaining 96% of drivers perfect scores for tire pressure, and you still lose more gas from tires.

4. Even if everything you say is right (which isn't true), and Obama only talked about tire pressure and nothing else (which isn't true either)...even then, by your own words, Obama's big mistake here is in using a number that has been widely reported. Wow! Really? Compared to McCain's repeated nonsense?
 
Last edited:
  • #120
Gokul, what we are seeing here is right out of Rove's play-book. Take a very reasonable statement out of context (like conveniently ignoring the phrase about proper maintenance and tune-ups), assert that your opponent is ignorant and out-of touch, and create ads that ridicule him for statements that he either didn't make or were attributed to him for reasons that they know not to be true, then exaggerate and distort your opponent's position as much as your focus-groups tell you that the public will swallow. Rove et al know that it's easier to hammer on lies than to fight the truth, and that a substantial portion of the electorate will swallow their spin because it's easier to adopt cynical views about politicians than to think critically about their positions.

I have been maintaining my own Harleys for years, and I can attest that tiny adjustments in fuel atomization, rich/lean balance, ignition, breathing, exhaust, etc can have some pretty dramatic effects on fuel economy. Those that discount Obama's statements on maintenance and tuning and focus only on tire pressure are playing Rove's game.
 
  • #121


Gokul43201 said:
3. All it takes to make Obama's claim true without recourse to any maintenance other than tire pressures is that the worst 4% of drivers lose 25% efficiency from underinflation. You can even give the remaining 96% of drivers perfect scores for tire pressure, and you still lose more gas from tires.
Do you have any source for this statement?

4. Even if everything you say is right (which isn't true), and Obama only talked about tire pressure and nothing else (which isn't true either)...even then, by your own words, Obama's big mistake here is in using a number that has been widely reported. Wow! Really? Compared to McCain's repeated nonsense?

You asked why are Obama's numbers falling in the market and I gave you two possible reasons. Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT. It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.
People are seeing him flip on his issues and he is making what many see are political gaffes like the air pressure thing. He set the bar high for himself and he just isn't living up to his hype like he could during the primaries. It is natural for him to be slipping in the polls... and if he continues his campaign along the lines he has this summer, I believe he will slip further after a short term positive bounce he gets from the Democrat Convention.

Oh and by the way... You do know that Obama referred to all drilling not just offshore drilling. You are questioning my honesty?

But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling — if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!
 
Last edited:
  • #122


chemisttree said:
Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT.

Do you have any sources for this statement?

chemisttree said:
It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.

Do you have any sources for this statement?
 
  • #123


WarPhalange said:
Do you have any sources for this statement?
I'll just assume that you've been out of the country. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/64_now_support_offshore_drilling_42_see_it_as_best_way_to_reduce_oil_prices

Do you have any sources for this statement?

...and it's a country without radio, newspaper, internet and TV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #124
He's taking your claims and using math to back up his claims. What kind of sources do you want?

And then you claim things as fact, no wait, I mean FACT, and don't bother to give sources.

Very classy.
 
  • #125


chemisttree said:
Do you have any source for this statement?
What source do you want: a link to multiplication tables?

25% X 4% X 150 billion gallons per year (that's your number) = 1.5 billion gallons lost each year.

You asked why are Obama's numbers falling in the market and I gave you two possible reasons. Most people don't believe his statement about tune ups and tire inflation - FACT.
You are now saying this for the first time. Yes, it's possibly true that most people are clueless.

It has recently been heavily reported in the media that he is flipping on many issues - FACT.
That's also probably true, though it is sad that the media has such a strong pro-McCain bias. He has flip-flopped by an order of magnitude more than Obama has.

People are seeing him flip on his issues and he is making what many see are political gaffes like the air pressure thing.
Yes, it's true that telling the truth is a political gaffe, while pandering tricks (like the whole drilling nonsense and the idiotic gas tax holiday) are political winners. So too are ridiculously untruthful campaign ads.

He set the bar high for himself and he just isn't living up to his hype like he could during the primaries. It is natural for him to be slipping in the polls... and if he continues his campaign along the lines he has this summer, I believe he will slip further after a short term positive bounce he gets from the Democrat Convention.
Guess he should take a page out of the Rove-McCain playbook and start playing sleazy too.

Oh and by the way... You do know that Obama referred to all drilling not just offshore drilling.
No, he did not. And if you missed it after I quoted it, I'll quote it again:
Obama said:
But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling...

They (the McCain Campaign) are talking about lifting the moratorium on drilling in the OCS.

You are questioning my honesty?
I will happily take that back and apologize when you explain your repeatedly ignoring a part of Obama's statement (even after I quoted it specifically, so you wouldn't miss it the second time).
 
Last edited:
  • #126


chemisttree said:
I'll just assume that you've been out of the country. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/64_now_support_offshore_drilling_42_see_it_as_best_way_to_reduce_oil_prices
I'll just assume you forgot that you mentioned flipping on many issues. Your link talks about Obama shifting position on one issue - an issue, incidentally, that McCain also flipped on. I know Obama has reversed on a few other issues as well, but McCain's list of reversals is tens and tens long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127


Gokul43201 said:
I'll just assume you forgot that you mentioned flipping on many issues. Your link talks about Obama shifting position on one issue - an issue, incidentally, that McCain also flipped on. I know Obama has reversed on a few other issues as well, but McCain's list of reversals is tens and tens long.

This illogic is fascinating... You asked about why Obama's numbers were falling and I gave you two reasons (with which you now agree)

You are now saying this for the first time. Yes, it's possibly true that most people are clueless.
That's also probably true, though it is sad that the media has such a strong pro-McCain bias. He has flip-flopped by an order of magnitude more than Obama has.

and yet you still persist in making this about McCain! Was your question really about how bad McCain is?

If he flips on his issues just like McCain, would you expect him to maintain a lead or to approach more or less an equal showing?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 43% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 46% and McCain 45%...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The race for Colorado’s Electoral College votes is about as close as it can be on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Colorado voters shows John McCain attracting 47% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 45%. When “leaners” are included, it’s McCain by a single percentage point, 49% to 48%.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/colorado/election_2008_colorado_presidential_election

Barack Obama still holds a solid 47% to 40% lead over John McCain in the key battleground state of Michigan, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters there.

Obama’s lead has dropped a statistically insignificant one-point since last month.

When “leaners” are factored in, Obama has a narrower 49% to 45% lead on his Republican rival.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_presidential_election

John McCain leads Barack Obama by seven percentage points in the race for Missouri’s Electoral College votes.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Missouri shows John McCain attracting 48% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 41%. This is the third time in the last four months that McCain’s support has been at 47% or 48%. The one exception came in early June—McCain’s support dipped as Obama was wrapping up the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Obama has been in the 41% to 43% range for four straight months.

Last month, McCain enjoyed a five-point lead in Missouri.

When leaners are included in the current survey, McCain leads Obama 50% to 44%, little changed from a month ago. Leaners are survey participants who initially indicate no preference for either major candidate but indicate that they are leaning towards either McCain or Obama.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election

It’s hard to imagine a closer political race than the battle for Virginia’s Electoral College votes.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant one-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 45%. When “leaners” are factored in, it’s McCain with a statistically insignificant one-point edge, 48% to 47%.

The difference between those two results can be found primarily among unaffiliated voters. Without leaners, McCain has a twelve point advantage among those not affiliated with either major party. When leaners are included, McCain’s advantage grows to seventeen points, 54% to 37%.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election

In North Carolina, voters are leaning more in John McCain’s direction than they have at any point since March.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds McCain ahead 46% to 42% in the Tar Heel State. That’s little changed from last month. But, when “leaners” are included, McCain has opened a six-point lead, 50% to 44%. That’s twice the three-point advantage from a month ago and McCain’s biggest edge since shortly after the Jeremiah Wright story became news in mid-March.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_presidential_election

John McCain has cut Barack Obama’s lead in Iowa in half over the past month but still trails the Democrat 46% to 41%, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.

When “leaners” are factored in, Obama leads his Republican opponent 49% to 44%.

Last month Obama had a double-digit lead on McCain, 51% to 41%. In June, after Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic presidential race, he led McCain by seven points.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election


These polls might be reflected in the Intrade Political Securities you referred to.

It certainly wouldn't be because of this...
 

Attachments

  • AlbuquerqueJournal.jpg
    AlbuquerqueJournal.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 410
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
WarPhalange said:
And then you claim things as fact, no wait, I mean FACT, and don't bother to give sources.

I usually don't bother to give details about statements that are obviously true. Now that you are back in country, you should research the issues yourself.

Very classy.
Thank you!
 
  • #129


chemisttree said:
This illogic is fascinating... You asked about why Obama's numbers were falling and I gave you two reasons (with which you now agree)
It's funny that you'd call my post illogical after having your primary claim and follow ups shown to be just wrong, at the very least. And after you then modify your stance to something I can agree with - it wasn't me that had to change my stance.

Anyway, an update on the polls...with a HUGE swing towards McCain.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):
Code: 
                     AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS                 |     PROJECTIONS
                                                                 |
Date      RCP1     RCP2     CNN   Elec-Vote  USAtlas-A  Pollster | Elec-Proj  USAtlas-P   
                                                                 |   
06/06   228/190                    287/227                       |  293/245
06/15   238/190                    304/221                       |  304/234      
06/21   238/163  289/249  211/194  317/194    271/191            |  349/189    298/240
06/26   238/163  317/221  211/194  317/194    288/180            |  338/200    298/240 
07/01   238/163  304/234  231/194  317/221    268/180            |  338/200    293/245 
07/06   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/218    268/177            |  338/200    293/245
07/11   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/215    268/188            |  306/232    293/245
07/16   255/163  304/234  231/194  320/204    268/177            |  311/227    293/245
07/21   255/163  322/216  231/194  312/199    268/172   293/214  |  298/240    293/245
07/26   238/163  322/216  221/189  292/195    264/175   284/147  |  338/200    298/240
08/11   238/163  322/216  221/189  289/236    264/202   284/157  |  298/240    293/245
08/21   228/174  264/274  221/189  264/261    264/210   260/191  |  264/274    293/245
                                                                 |
 
  • #130
Well, yeah...Obama was on vacation in Hawaii - a place that only "rich" "elite" people ever go. And McCain was back home talking tough to the Russians about disputed territories in Georgia and preaching that "In the 21st century, countries don't invade other countries". That played to the flag-waving mouth-breathers pretty well, evidently. Hopefully, the recent DNC revelations that John McCain thinks "rich" people make at least 5 Million dollars a year, and his inability to describe within an order of magnitude how many houses he owns will register with the low-to-middle income supporters who want more corporate tax breaks and more tax breaks for the wealthy.
 
  • #132
It's not fair to say he's unable to answer that question. He realized (just in time, it seems) that producing a soundbite along the lines of we own about a dozen houses might not be politically smart, and deliberately chose not to answer.
 
  • #133
Nice house - 9 bedrooms and 12 bathrooms, plenty of space in the walk through closet. The McCains must have enough clothes for a small town.

YdwjC0Wbk3Q[/youtube] Afterall, he just a regular guy who married well.
 
  • #134
Gokul43201 said:
It's not fair to say he's unable to answer that question. He realized (just in time, it seems) that producing a soundbite along the lines of we own about a dozen houses might not be politically smart, and deliberately chose not to answer.

Sure, but now it looks like he has so many he can't even count them. Or he's so old he can't remember.

Basically it was a good question.
 
  • #135
Astronuc said:
Nice house - 9 bedrooms and 12 bathrooms, plenty of space in the walk through closet. The McCains must have enough clothes for a small town.

YdwjC0Wbk3Q[/youtube] Afterall, he...ome sleazy trick as soon as they take office.
 
  • #136
Okay, let's not make this about the McCain homes - it's not worth an extended discussion.
 
  • #137
I'm worried that if McCain wins the elections, the Republican party will never stop running attack campaigns.
 
  • #138
And if he loses, will they figure they didn't attack enough?

Looks like that's what Obama's figuring right now.

Last month, the National Review urged McCain to start campaigning more like Hillary did during the Primary (yes, when it comes to dirty campaigning, the neocons have a real crush on Hillary). After McCain gains following a stretch of negative campaigning over the last few weeks, the Dems are exhorting Obama to start hitting back (see, for example, the recent op-ed by Dem hitman, Carville). And he's doing it - taking a cheap shot with the McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns line.On a completely unrelated note, there was an interesting fund-raising stat that came up last week. I wanted to post it here, but forgot, so here it is:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous campaigns in which military donations tended to favor GOP White House hopefuls, a nonpartisan group reported Thursday.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080814/military_donations.html

How is that possible? McCain is an untouchable military icon, a "celebrity", you could say! Are the troops actually aware that despite McCain's rhetoric about supporting the troops, he repeatedly voted against spending money on improving conditions (materiel, armor, medical care, etc.) for them - measures that Obama voted for? Do they realize that Obama actually has shown better judgment on Foreign policy, or is it factors unrelated to the Military altogether (they have to worry about the economy too)? Or are they just voting for the person that will get them home faster?

Whatever it is, looks like they believe Obama will better serve their interests. Obama, not McCain.

But this shouldn't be a problem for McCain, since he knows the military and any polls that disagree with him are just wrong.

uZLvboDecho[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
  • #139
If you're interested in participating in an online vote, I would like to invite you to http://www.votenow2008.blogspot.com" which is a fairly ambitious attempt to predict the electoral results based on visitors' votes. I don't think it's an accurate representation of the nation's votes, but with enough respondents it could be interesting to see how it ultimately compares to the actual results on Nov 4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
The latest slimy campaign ad from McCain:

QJj-TacxqGA[/youtube] That's so pa...re already lining up to eat out of his hands.
 
Last edited:
  • #141


Last Update before the end of the Democratic Primary.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):
Code: 
                     AGGREGATES OF CURRENT POLLS                 |     PROJECTIONS
                                                                 |
Date      RCP1     RCP2     CNN   Elec-Vote  USAtlas-A  Pollster | Elec-Proj  USAtlas-P   
                                                                 |   
06/06   228/190                    287/227                       |  293/245
06/15   238/190                    304/221                       |  304/234      
06/21   238/163  289/249  211/194  317/194    271/191            |  349/189    298/240
06/26   238/163  317/221  211/194  317/194    288/180            |  338/200    298/240 
07/01   238/163  304/234  231/194  317/221    268/180            |  338/200    293/245 
07/06   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/218    268/177            |  338/200    293/245
07/11   238/163  304/234  231/194  320/215    268/188            |  306/232    293/245
07/16   255/163  304/234  231/194  320/204    268/177            |  311/227    293/245
07/21   255/163  322/216  231/194  312/199    268/172   293/214  |  298/240    293/245
07/26   238/163  322/216  221/189  292/195    264/175   284/147  |  338/200    298/240
08/11   238/163  322/216  221/189  289/236    264/202   284/157  |  298/240    293/245
08/21   228/174  264/274  221/189  264/261    264/210   260/191  |  264/274    293/245
08/26   228/174  273/265  221/189  273/252    259/210   260/176  |  273/265    293/245
                                                                 |
 
  • #142
Gokul43201 said:
On a completely unrelated note, there was an interesting fund-raising stat that came up last week. I wanted to post it here, but forgot, so here it is:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080814/military_donations.html

How is that possible? McCain is an untouchable military icon, a "celebrity", you could say! Are the troops actually aware that despite McCain's rhetoric about supporting the troops, he repeatedly voted against spending money on improving conditions (materiel, armor, medical care, etc.) for them - measures that Obama voted for? Do they realize that Obama actually has shown better judgment on Foreign policy, or is it factors unrelated to the Military altogether (they have to worry about the economy too)? Or are they just voting for the person that will get them home faster?

Whatever it is, looks like they believe Obama will better serve their interests. Obama, not McCain.

But this shouldn't be a problem for McCain, since he knows the military and any polls that disagree with him are just wrong.
Matching the size of the military to the tasks assigned to them is pretty important.

Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy got the most publicity when he was President, but reaping the peace dividend while sending the military out on so many peacekeeping missions was also a problem with the military. Reaping the peace dividend may have started with Bush 41, but the problems with it became a lot more obvious when too many peacekeeping deployments started interfering with training for war time missions. The increase in deployments also increases family stress and causes an exodus of experience, amplifying the training problems.

Stretching a smaller military to cover Afghanistan and Iraq is the same basic problem; just at a larger magnitude. The deployments are even more frequent and the family stress level for each deployment is higher (it doesn't take catastrophic casualty rates; just high enough to be an almost daily news item).

Dropping violence levels and casualty rates can over win over the general public. But a long term policy of frequent deployments for peacekeeping missions hurts military morale more than a short, intense war. Bush 41 was extremely popular with the military.

Militaries are extremely expensive with large, but necessary overhead expenses. A couple of Presidents haven't seemed to realize that and have seemed to have the attitude of "if we're paying for them, we ought to use them".

Going into Iraq without much of a plan on how to handle the aftermath didn't help much either. I think that part has made Iraq permanently unpopular judging from the dissent from so many retired generals.
 
  • #143


Gokul43201 said:
It's funny that you'd call my post illogical after having your primary claim and follow ups shown to be just wrong, at the very least. And after you then modify your stance to something I can agree with - it wasn't me that had to change my stance.

Anyway, an update on the polls...with a HUGE swing towards McCain.

Electoral maps (Obama/McCain):

One thing I like about electoral-vote.com is the graph showing how the projected electoral vote changes over time: Electoral College Graph.

There's a lot of fluctuation in the projections, but the trend in "safer" states (> 5% difference) is pretty steady. This election season, the fluctuations seem to be hard to anticipate and hard to explain. As Election Projection says, "Like so much of this election season, recent polls aren't following the expected course."

Obama has a long way to go before he can be confident about winning. McCain has an even bigger hill to climb.

Still, if McCain can keep the "safer" states down at 250 or lower, the polls seem to suggest that anything could happen on election night.

A different note on the convention - especially convention coverage. What's up with CNN and MSNBC talking about the lack of attacks on Republicans. If you switch to C-Span, it looks like quite a few of the speakers are on the attack - you just don't see them on CNN and MSNBC because the analysts are sucking up all the air time.

I guess the wrong speakers are on the attack. CNN and MSNBC don't like to break away from the chatter of their "experts" to cover the convention. The speaker has to have a pretty high profile before the convention becomes worth covering.

Personally, I was more interested in seeing http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080825 than seeing attacks on Republicans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
anyone just catch Obama making out with Jill Biden on stage when he made his surprise visit at the end of day three? :smile: I think he was going for the cheek, but definitely planted a huge smacker on her lips right in front of Joe lol
 
  • #145
That's good. It shows the public that Obama isn't afraid to take what he wants, and it shows Biden his place: where ever Obama wants. Now we just need to see him sucker punching some school bully so that he can show America that he isn't afraid to stand up and use force when necessary.

Unlike this guy:

yEc1daWnyGo[/youtube] How can you ...f you can't even slap a woman's *** properly?
 
  • #146
Obama has to make a compelling speech tonight.

I'd like to see him include the Preamble of the US Consitution and explain how his administration will address the commitments therein.

I hope his message is about his vision and how he plans to address the challenges that the US if facing. I don't want to hear about his opponent or what his opponent can or cannot do.
 
  • #147
hey, how is my boy al doing? (how many times ) did i mention i used to know him? he was a good kid, and i respect him even more now.
 
  • #148
we'll probably lose in november after the swift boat ads air, but for now,...yeeee hahh! even eisenhower's grand daughter is on stage for barack.
 
  • #149
A hurricane on opening night of the Republican Convention!

Funny thing is that it actually could be a positive for Republicans - provided it doesn't turn into a repeat of the Katrina disaster. Leave Bush and Cheney on the schedule for Monday night while the entire nation watches news of Gustav. If either has to cancel to respond to the hurricane, even better. Move Laura Bush to Tuesday night - she's actually popular.

Of course, if Gustav reaches a Cat 3 and the rebuilt levees in New Orleans fail, then oh,boy ... Obama can start picking his cabinet early.
 

Similar threads

News Does Your Vote Really Matter in Presidential Elections?
3
Replies
139
Views
16K
News Was the 2008 election a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party?
Replies
21
Views
4K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
2
Replies
82
Views
20K
  • Poll Poll
News What Will the Voter Turnout Be in the Upcoming US Presidential Election?
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Who will win the popular vote and by what margin?
Replies
39
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top