Who are you going to vote for in the election?

[Gokul43201]

His ads are deliberately misquoting McCain and Palin or deliberately misinterpreting their statements. It's just plain ugly.

Do you recall which specific ads these were? Any key words come to mind? We could dig them up if you have some recollection of the general themes of the ads.

A recent Obama attack ad won him his first ever "pants on fire" rating from politifact.com. McCain got two this month, bringing his total to 6.

 

[grant9076]

Perhaps there should also be choices for Undecided or Neither One. These choices would be good for those of us that are not sold on either candidate.

 

[Dale]

in fact, even if one is planning on voting for a certain candidate, it doesn't necessarily follow that they think the candidate will win!

Yeah, I am voting McCain, but suspect that Obama will win. Issues-wise McCain is much more mainstream than Obama, but Obama is much more charismatic than McCain. I think charisma beats issues, but would be delighted to be proven wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you sure they are misquoting anyone?

There's one running in my area where Obama misuses a McCain quote. McCain says something like 'it's our fault' (clearly froma speech he made in Congress) and 'Obama says in the ad - yes, it is his fault.' Next time I hear it, I'll take more specific note of it.

And Obama is more truthful according to Gokul's fact checks.

That site was a pretty small site from a pretty small newspaper so not a real good source. They only reviewed about a dozen quotes.

One doozie that I had forgottenabout (and isn't listed on that site) is Obama's whopper from the end of March about McCain wanting a 100 year war.

Here's a new one from factcheck.org:

In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

That should rate a "pants on fire" on that site Gokul found. We'll see if they pick it up.

The list of ads on the front page of factcheck implies a shift by Obama in the past week to be more on the attack and looser with the truth.

He also has a highly effective ad that he's been playing a lot that whitewashes the gender/income gap issue in the US. Simply put, it doesn't exist.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yeah, I am voting McCain, but suspect that Obama will win. Issues-wise McCain is much more mainstream than Obama, but Obama is much more charismatic than McCain. I think charisma beats issues, but would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Unfortunately McCain's lifelong love affair with deregulation and banking lobbyist money has come home to roost in the latest meltdown.

Jobs and financial security will trump the concerns about Obama whether or not they stem from racial distrust. This election will be very much along the lines of the Clinton victory in which Begala coined the phrase "It's the economy stupid."

 

[Gokul43201]

That site was a pretty small site from a pretty small newspaper so not a real good source.

Congressional Quarterly is a "pretty small newspaper"?

From the wiki:

Despite its name, CQ was published quarterly for only one year. Demand drove more frequent updates, first weekly, then daily. CQ was also an early leader in delivering information on a real-time basis, starting with a dial-up service in 1984. Its Web site dominates the market for online legislative tracking information, and has been nominated for several awards. In recent years, CQ has launched several electronic-only newsletters with greater focus on particular areas, including CQ Homeland Security, CQ Budget Tracker, CQ HealthBeat, and CQ Green Sheets.

They only reviewed about a dozen quotes.

They have reviewed 119 quotes from McCain and 126 quotes from Obama. I think that's a little more than a dozen.

Did you think I got these percentages out of a dozen quotes?

Meanwhile, here's the score on lying by the two campaigns, according to Politifact.com.

Truthiness   McCain      Obama
---------------------------------
True           22%        34%
Mostly True    18%        21%
Half True      17%        18%
Barely True    19%        11%
False          19%        16%
Pants on Fire  05%        00%

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1873569&postcount=206

That table today looks like this:

Truthiness   McCain      Obama
---------------------------------
True           21%        33%
Mostly True    18%        20%
Half True      16%        18%
Barely True    20%        12%
False          19%        16%
Pants on Fire  05%        01%

Not a whole lot has changed in the cumulative record.

One doozie that I had forgottenabout (and isn't listed on that site) is Obama's whopper from the end of March about McCain wanting a 100 year war.

It is listed on that site. Obama won himself a rating of "False" for that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/388/

In Obama's defense, once he was called out on that, he almost immediately changed the words he used. In subsequent speeches, he only referred to McCain admitting to a 100 year troop presence, as evidenced by this question from Fox's Megyn Kelly on Apr 1:

KELLY: So, OK, it goes on and on. What about Obama's refined position that McCain supports a 100 year troop presence in Iraq is inaccurate?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344988,00.html

The list of ads on the front page of factcheck implies a shift by Obama in the past week to be more on the attack and looser with the truth.

While that is true, Obama has a long way to go to make it into McCain's league. The factcheck.org "Whoppers of 2008" list catches the McCain campaign 23 times and the Obama campaign 12 times.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html

He also has a highly effective ad that he's been playing a lot that white washes the gender/income gap issue in the US. Simply put, it doesn't exist.

I agree, mostly. If McCain disappeared today, and Obama kept going, they would be about even by November.

 

[russ_watters]

To be perfectly honest, I saw GQ second, next to the name of a local Florida newspaper, and a somewhat amateurish website and didn't read all the way through their explanations. I'll concede that it is somewhat better than I had realized.