WWTBAM Bored

Real Hope is on the horizon. Gallup has the race at 2 points.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 5253.story

Denial: It ain't just a river in Egypt.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Denial: It ain't just a river in Egypt.

Neither Obama nor McCain is acting as if the election is over. In contrast, in 1996, Bob Dole changed his campaigning the last couple of weeks to make appearances to help shore up support for Republican Senate and House candidates. He knew the election was over and was in damage control mode. McCain's internals, and presumably Obama's, show things a lot closer, and they are campaigning on that basis.

Nobody really knows at this point what the turnout is going to be, and results in early voting have been mixed. Plus there are a number of other factors which might influence the results, including variants of the Bradley effect. Is Obama's support among blacks (in some states he polls at 96-1) overstated slightly (black voters for McCain may be unwilling to say so)? Or more generally are Democrats unwilling to say they aren't voting McCain? If Pennsylvania is in play, which it certainly seems from the events going on there, that changes a number of the election models and gives McCain more wiggle room.

McCain needs things to go his way in the next week, but history has shown that undecideds and "swing" states tend to break one way or the other. In other words, if there are ten swing states, they don't wind up going 5-5 or 6-4; it's often 9-1. Statistics is an incredibly exact science; polling is not.

Results are indeed mixed. Yesterday, newspapers reported that in the metro Denver area, Rs were coming out for early voting at 26%, Ds at 22%.

Today, report locally is that Ds have early-voted about 32%, Rs about 25%.

I hope that 70% vote early. That means faster returns and more time for celebrating (I hope).

you also said that picking sarah as vp spelled doom for the democrats

ha

BigDrawMan wrote:you also said that picking sarah as vp spelled doom for the democrats

ha

Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.

danielh41 wrote:
Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.

2.

Flybrick wrote:

danielh41 wrote:
Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.

2.

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

Boring Mini wrote:

Flybrick wrote:

danielh41 wrote:
Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.

2.

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

I would have had no problem voting for Obama if he was a conservative.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Boring Mini wrote:

Flybrick wrote: 2.

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

I would have had no problem voting for Obama if he was a conservative.

I'd have no trouble being the Queen IF I were British and in the line of succession.........

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Boring Mini wrote:

Flybrick wrote: 2.

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

I would have had no problem voting for Obama if he was a conservative.

Made me laugh. Is that your way of saying it has nothing to do with his race that you are not gonna vote for him?

The very well-respected Franklin & Marshall poll (run by Terry Madonna) poll came out today.

Pennsylvania: Obama +13.

The F&M poll is usually among the most accurate for PA and Madonna is a nationally respected pollster. So, I tend to take its results as pretty reflective.

IIRC, he had Kerry winning PA by three points in 2004 and that was only after Kerry pulled ahead at the end.

The GOP once has a stranglehold on this area of Montgomery County. Boonie said when he and Alice moved up here in 1977, there were not many registered Democrats.

As of the weekend, in our little area alone -- a middle-class neighborhood with blue-collar overtones (read: union members) -- there are 15 Obama signs and one McCain sign.

On my regular drive home, I pass two houses that had several Hillary signs on the lawn in the primary. The Hillary signs are still there, joined by Obama signs.

We don't have early voting here so I have no statistics. I just have lawn signs in places where there were no Kerry lawn signs four years ago. People are not resting. We had canvassers in the neighborhood over the weekend and I suspect we will have them again this weekend.

My gut tells me that McCain doesn't have that wiggle room. According to every story I've read, people are very forthcoming if they are not voting for Obama for whatever reason.

As I said before, I don't think Obama carries PA by double-digits. I think he wins by five points.

Boring Mini wrote:

Flybrick wrote:

danielh41 wrote:
Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.

2.

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

She energized and solidified both bases. I saw a chart at HQ the other day for the entire state. Right after McCain named Palin, contributions to both parties jumped about 5%. This could also be due to the national conventions, except that the spikes were simultaneous.

After that first brilliant speech, now that she's working without a script and lacking 12 straight hours of coaching, she's alienated unaffiliateds and suburban women. The moderates she hasn't already alienated, as BoringMini says, she's in the process of doing that now by going off script in a display of disloyalty and whackness.

She is still a darling of the right wing, and I'm absolutely certain you'll see a Palin run for the Presidency in four years no matter what happens Tuesday.

mellytu74 wrote: My gut tells me that McCain doesn't have that wiggle room. According to every story I've read, people are very forthcoming if they are not voting for Obama for whatever reason.

How can they know this? If I'm not voting for Obama and I don't want people to know, I just don't tell them, regardless of whether it's a reporter or not. So there may be thousands of closet McCain supporters out there who just keep their mouths shut and there's no way to know until election day.

And after the way Joe the Plumber got trashed in the media, there's even more reason for people to keep their mouths shut if they are supporting McCain.

SportsFan68 wrote: After that first brilliant speech, now that she's working without a script and lacking 12 straight hours of coaching, she's alienated unaffiliateds and suburban women. The moderates she hasn't already alienated, as BoringMini says, she's in the process of doing that now by going off script in a display of disloyalty and whackness.

With the exception of the Couric interview (and to a lesser extent the Gibson interview), Palin has handled herself quite well in talking to the press in recent weeks. However, the media refuses to give her much airtime on network news so what most people hear about is that one occurrence as somehow being "proof" she's not ready.

Funny how the Biden gaffes and his refusal to talk to a growing number of local stations don't get as much attention.

peacock2121 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Boring Mini wrote:
Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

I would have had no problem voting for Obama if he was a conservative.

Made me laugh. Is that your way of saying it has nothing to do with his race that you are not gonna vote for him?

Race matters much more to Liberals than Conservatives. If given the choice of two people with equal conservative values, most true conservatives would choose a 'minority' candidate, (black, female, red, green blue whatever). Obama, if he were even somewhat conservative and didn't have so many questionable associations and problematic leanings, would be preferable over McCain, but I have to hold my nose and vote for McCain, because I cannot in good conscience trust Obama with the power of the Presidency. He is, at the core, a Chicago machine politician who is presenting himself as a different person than is shown by the record that we know. And the mainstream press does not seem to be motivated to go beyond his race and the historical significance of his nomination. His voting record is ultraliberal and he is very partisan. He seems to be a well spoken and less shrill version of Maxine Waters. He does not represent very many of my values and concerns. There is just too much iceberg under the water with Obama.

silverscreenselect wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: After that first brilliant speech, now that she's working without a script and lacking 12 straight hours of coaching, she's alienated unaffiliateds and suburban women. The moderates she hasn't already alienated, as BoringMini says, she's in the process of doing that now by going off script in a display of disloyalty and whackness.

With the exception of the Couric interview (and to a lesser extent the Gibson interview), Palin has handled herself quite well in talking to the press in recent weeks. However, the media refuses to give her much airtime on network news so what most people hear about is that one occurrence as somehow being "proof" she's not ready.

Funny how the Biden gaffes and his refusal to talk to a growing number of local stations don't get as much attention.

The Biden gaffes get plenty of attention around here. I know we live in different states (in my case, altered ); I guess that accounts for it. Locally, Biden gets probably twice as many unfavorable editor letters as Palin, while she gets probably five times as many favorable letters as Biden. My guess is that Obama probably gets about five times as many favorable letters vs. McCain. Palin is probably siphoning off some favorable letters that would otherwise go to McCain.

I wonder if Palin is guilty of what Clinton was accused of, if perhaps she's hoping for an Obama victory so she'll be better positioned for 2012.

silverscreenselect wrote:

mellytu74 wrote: My gut tells me that McCain doesn't have that wiggle room. According to every story I've read, people are very forthcoming if they are not voting for Obama for whatever reason.

How can they know this? If I'm not voting for Obama and I don't want people to know, I just don't tell them, regardless of whether it's a reporter or not. So there may be thousands of closet McCain supporters out there who just keep their mouths shut and there's no way to know until election day.

And after the way Joe the Plumber got trashed in the media, there's even more reason for people to keep their mouths shut if they are supporting McCain.

Those same stories are full of people who say they are voting FOR McCain, too.

It's not like the McCain voters are keeping quiet.

sss, I just don't see it here. McCain could make up 1.5 points a day and still not carry PA. And that's not going to happen.

Boring Mini wrote:

Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.

You are absolutely correct. I would have never voted for Obama.

I was, however, going to give McCain a pass until his VP pick.

Not that I'm in love with Gov Palin, but the bold move of picking not another MAWG as a running mate, showed me some spark.

Enough to make me vote for McCain.

So, the pick of Palin gained McCain at least one additional vote for the Republicans.

silverscreenselect wrote:Nobody really knows at this point what the turnout is going to be, and results in early voting have been mixed. Plus there are a number of other factors which might influence the results, including variants of the Bradley effect. Is Obama's support among blacks (in some states he polls at 96-1) overstated slightly (black voters for McCain may be unwilling to say so)? Or more generally are Democrats unwilling to say they aren't voting McCain? If Pennsylvania is in play, which it certainly seems from the events going on there, that changes a number of the election models and gives McCain more wiggle room.

I generally stay out of the political threads but I make an exception here because it seems that for all that it's talked about, there really is no "Bradley effect" (or "Wilder effect"). NPR did a story about this last week and debunked the idea that Bradley lost the California election because of overstated support in exit polls and such. The real reason he lost was a large absentee vote, among other things.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=95929466

Comedian silverscreenselect wrote:And after the way Joe the Plumber got trashed in the media, there's even more reason for people to keep their mouths shut if they are supporting McCain.

Did it ever occur to anybody that Joe the Plumber wouldn't have been "trashed" by the media if 1) he was actually a licensed plumber, 2) he made more than $40,000/year, 3) he could actually afford to buy a business that makes over $250,000/year, 4) he wasn't a registered Republican parroting talking points while parading himself as an undecided voter, 5) he wasn't related to Charles Keating, 6) he wasn't a tax evader, and 7) his real name was Joe and not Samuel.

There are a lot of real Joe the Plumbers out there, but Mr. Wurzelbacher is not Joe the Plumber. He is Samuel the Fraud.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Comedian silverscreenselect wrote:And after the way Joe the Plumber got trashed in the media, there's even more reason for people to keep their mouths shut if they are supporting McCain.

Did it ever occur to anybody that Joe the Plumber wouldn't have been "trashed" by the media if 1) he was actually a licensed plumber, 2) he made more than $40,000/year, 3) he could actually afford to buy a business that makes over $250,000/year, 4) he wasn't a registered Republican parroting talking points while parading himself as an undecided voter, 5) he wasn't related to Charles Keating, 6) he wasn't a tax evader, and 7) his real name was Joe and not Samuel.

There are a lot of real Joe the Plumbers out there, but Mr. Wurzelbacher is not Joe the Plumber. He is Samuel the Fraud.

1) Hasn't the matter of Joe's licensing been gone over enough?
2/3) He never said how much money he made and he never claimed he could afford the business. He said if things went well, he hoped to be able to buy the business some day.
4) He never approached Obama claiming to be an independent; Obama came up to him.
5) There's never been one bit of proof he's related to Keating.
6) Having an unpaid tax lien (if it's valid) indicates he's had financial problems, not that he's a tax evader.
7) You've just called millions of people who go by their middle names frauds.

Your continued parroting of these ridiculous talking points is the main reason why a lot of people are keeping their mouths shut about their intentions to vote for McCain. I'm actually somewhat surprised you actually got through seven talking points without calling Joe a racist.

Did it ever occur to anybody that Joe the Plumber wouldn't have been "trashed" by the media if 1) he was actually a licensed plumber, 2) he made more than $40,000/year, 3) he could actually afford to buy a business that makes over $250,000/year, 4) he wasn't a registered Republican parroting talking points while parading himself as an undecided voter, 5) he wasn't related to Charles Keating, 6) he wasn't a tax evader, and 7) his real name was Joe and not Samuel.

No.

In the final analysis, he asked a question.

Anything in his background was immaterial to his asking a question.

Obama's unscripted and unrehearsed answer was and is the story.

It's intimidation for the right to free speech, that tenant so lovingly cherished by the media.

For any Obama supporter who thinks "Joe" got what he deserved, would you feel free to ask a troublesome question to McCain or Palin?

Seriously? You wouldn't think twice before asking knowing that your entire life will be dissected by the media, the opposition political party, and any internet user who's got a few minutes?

You are braver than I if that's the case.

mellytu74 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

mellytu74 wrote: My gut tells me that McCain doesn't have that wiggle room. According to every story I've read, people are very forthcoming if they are not voting for Obama for whatever reason.

How can they know this? If I'm not voting for Obama and I don't want people to know, I just don't tell them, regardless of whether it's a reporter or not. So there may be thousands of closet McCain supporters out there who just keep their mouths shut and there's no way to know until election day.

And after the way Joe the Plumber got trashed in the media, there's even more reason for people to keep their mouths shut if they are supporting McCain.

Those same stories are full of people who say they are voting FOR McCain, too.

It's not like the McCain voters are keeping quiet.

The fact that some people who are for McCain aren't afraid of coming out and saying it doesn't mean that everyone for McCain is willing to do so, especially if they are from a demographic (black, Democratic, young, liberal) that is "supposed" to be for Obama.

Actually, the nomination of Obama as president spells doom for the Democrats, especially if he wins. What Palin's nomination did was energize those of us on the right who weren't that crazy about McCain.[/quote]

2.[/quote]


Like either of you would have gone for Obama in any case. She alienated the moderates. I have McCain's autograph from 2000, but he's not the same guy now.[/quote]

She energized and solidified both bases. I saw a chart at HQ the other day for the entire state. Right after McCain named Palin, contributions to both parties jumped about 5%. This could also be due to the national conventions, except that the spikes were simultaneous.

After that first brilliant speech, now that she's working without a script and lacking 12 straight hours of coaching, she's alienated unaffiliateds and suburban women. The moderates she hasn't already alienated, as BoringMini says, she's in the process of doing that now by going off script in a display of disloyalty and whackness.

She is still a darling of the right wing, and I'm absolutely certain you'll see a Palin run for the Presidency in four years no matter what happens Tuesday.[/quote]


Unfortunately, she is the darling of the po white trash wing.You cant fund a campaign with old
Copenhagen lids.She is W without the name or money.

And there is bdms razor to contend with:

It will be difficult to find enough people dumb enough to vote for her,yet smart enough to find their way to the polls.