Who are you going to vote for in the election?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date

Who are you going to vote for in the election?

  • Obama

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • McCain

    Votes: 10 34.5%

  • Total voters
    29
  • #26
p4poetic
Barack Obama :)
 
  • #27
Amp1
Barack, Wa Hoo!
 
  • #28
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
She'll get the Evangelical vote, but a majority of them were voting McCain anyway.
I think the concern is that they wouldn't bother coming out to the polls at all, because they weren't very strongly supportive of McCain either. They wouldn't vote for Obama, but they might not have voted for anyone. Bush certainly knew that mobilizing them to the polls can make or break a close campaign.

Though, I haven't seen anything BUT negative attack ads from Obama. They've just gotten worse recently. Maybe the ads are different regionally and he already figures he's pissed off the West Virginians so has nothing to lose than try to discredit McCain. They sure aren't going to win him any votes here. If anything, it turns more people off when you start getting as nasty as he has. His ads are deliberately misquoting McCain and Palin or deliberately misinterpreting their statements. It's just plain ugly.

The negative McCain ads I've seen haven't been so bad. They just question Obama's experience, which people were doing anyway, and is a legitimate concern. Obviously, he couldn't keep doing that after bringing Palin on board, since that's going to backfire now. So instead of taking cheap shots like Obama is, he's focusing on their strengths in the ads.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,238
216
His ads are deliberately misquoting McCain and Palin or deliberately misinterpreting their statements. It's just plain ugly.
Are you sure they are misquoting anyone? McCain has telling some unbelievable whoppers. And Obama is more truthful according to Gokul's fact checks.
 
  • #30
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18


15 is a pretty low limit.

If only 269 Bush voters had voted for Gore in 2000, he would have won Florida by 1 vote and the electoral college by 49 electoral votes.
Yes, 15 is really low. I picked 15 in the original poll in response to some statements that the race was going to be really close, and because it looked like it might come down to how NV, NM and CO went.

Incidentally, the current RCP margin is smaller than 15 EVs.
 
  • #31
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
 
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
30,359
6,846


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.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
19,948
6,440
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,090
4


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."
 
  • #36
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
russ said:
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.
Code:
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:

Code:
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.

russ said:
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 refered 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

russ said:
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 [Broken]

russ said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
19,948
6,440
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.
 

Related Threads on Who are you going to vote for in the election?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
739
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Top